• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

End of the pullman arms v. Healey case today?

Michael J. Spangler

NES Member
Rating - 100%
45   0   0
Joined
Sep 1, 2007
Messages
4,830
Likes
4,127
Location
Fairhaven, MA

If you check this from NSSF it links to the enforcement notice where she calls out AR and AK and duplicates.
 

exo

NES Member
Rating - 100%
106   0   0
Joined
Mar 3, 2009
Messages
7,653
Likes
2,321
Location
Hinterlands
Does nothing to change the plan to move out as soon as possible.

I can tell you that moving is only a temporary solution. The communists in VT forgot to assault our right to defend ourselves in a major way until last year. They’ve since rectified that oversight. They didn’t even have the good graces to wait until I finished building my house. Tyranny will follow you wherever you go.
 

67ray

NES Member
Rating - 100%
253   0   0
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
2,746
Likes
3,080
Agreed - this is weaksauce but more worrisome is the legislation all those Statehouse libtards have been trying to figur eon the best time to launch. We are not safe.
 

TLB

Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
7,195
Likes
6,867
Location
Heading for greener pastures
So after further review the fella selling the AR lower for $600 is about to raise his price...
Why anyone would pay that I don't know. MFS sells them for $49. Build first as a .22 if you want to follow the law and register without issue. She is still not going to be prosecuting anyone. Especially not now that Trump foiled the Clinton influenced SCOTUS she thought was coming at the time back in July 2016.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 6, 2012
Messages
13,142
Likes
21,549
Location
Plymouth
I know about "supply and demand", but it just made me sad to see so many here on NES looking to sell ARs and lowers to fellow members at those ridiculous prices. Glad that I did not partake in that. Jack.

Just making my way through this post now, but a lot of people selling stuff in there(esp. at buttraping prices) are not regular posters. In fact, there was one guy a while back who has a shitload of posted for sale stuff, isn't a paid dealer and never had one single post in any other part of the forum. Good, let them eat their overpriced shit
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
18,156
Likes
9,159
up4GItk.gif


The way I read it is, the court neutered the case but allowed it to proceed in a limited manner:

"Court issued a decision on March, 2018 which allowed the case to proceed. In its order, the Court decided that the plaintiffs could not bring a facial vagueness challenge to the notice, meaning that the potential relief would be limited only to whether the notice was too vague to apply to the firearms listed in the complaint "

Thus, after that point, effectively constraining the entire thing to the handful of guns mentioned specifically in the body of the complaint, like Tavor, .22 LR AR clones, M1A/MK14 blah blah. In other words, stuff that most people are already selling at this point but the plaintiffs were unsure about selling because the AG never answered their questions.

-Mike
Weaksauce. Basically declaring victory in a press release when the whole thing had been whittled down to meaningless and useless re-clarification of the re-re-re-clarified legislation-by-faq.
Those paging the Comm2a people - they had nothing to do with this case. NSSF swooped in loud and proud but heads home in a whimper.

The only way to really challenge this would be for Healey to charge someone with a crime to create a real test case. Otherwise she gets her win with fear uncertainty and doubt.
This is not great news at all.

I should have read the full announcement before jumping into the comments in this thread.

The agreement has nothing to do with ARs.

It just has to do with guns that she already agrees are legal.

The guns in question are already listed as compliant on the Healey AG FAQ on her own website.

This was already agreed upon in the summer.

Nothing is changing.

New ARs bought after July 20, 2016 are still banned.

What we have now in state is all there will ever be until SCOTUS.


ron-paul-for-esident-10-its-not-happening-not-happening-52710078.png

I should open a shop in MA right over the border from my house.

Rub it in even more and also sell vaping supplies and E Juices.
 

Len-2A Training

Instructor
Instructor
NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 98.6%
71   1   0
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
53,638
Likes
12,967
Location
99% in NH
Some of the god tier Walmart snipers here would literally call the store and ask for an SG associate to meet them at the counter.... i never did it, but at one point during the obamascare era it was common to just get someone paged when you walked into the store....
I get the feeling that this isn't going to mean much, but I'm just trying to keep myself from being disappointed.
I agree with you on this.

Somewhere deep in the statehouse, charlie baker just stood up from his desk and told maura to "hold my beer"
It wouldn't surprise me if she's approached the legislature and received assurance that they will get a bill thru that does what she was trying to do.

What bothers me, is that it feels like they just sent it back to Maura to 'get it right'...

meaning fix her loopholes.
Yup and she'll "get right on it" at the same time she releases her list of AG Regs compliant guns (read the CMR, it states clearly that the AG will create and maintain a list of guns that meet her regs) . . . no AG has done this and no AG will do it either!

As reference, the US Army Corps of Engineers lost the case about banning possession on all Corps property. They told the judge that they would be revising the CFR. It is now 3-4 years later and there has been no such revision to the CFR. This case should not have been abandoned until she generated the memo and the lawyers and judge agreed to the wording.


The way I read it is, the court neutered the case but allowed it to proceed in a limited manner:

"Court issued a decision on March, 2018 which allowed the case to proceed. In its order, the Court decided that the plaintiffs could not bring a facial vagueness challenge to the notice, meaning that the potential relief would be limited only to whether the notice was too vague to apply to the firearms listed in the complaint "

Thus, after that point, effectively constraining the entire thing to the handful of guns mentioned specifically in the body of the complaint, like Tavor, .22 LR AR clones, M1A/MK14 blah blah. In other words, stuff that most people are already selling at this point but the plaintiffs were unsure about selling because the AG never answered their questions.

-Mike
The only way to really challenge this would be for Healey to charge someone with a crime to create a real test case. Otherwise she gets her win with fear uncertainty and doubt.
She hasn't and she won't nor will her successor. They know that in criminal court their charade would get tossed, so they operate on FUD with no intention of prosecuting anyone.
 

Cuthbert Allgood

NES Member
Rating - 100%
55   0   0
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
8,826
Likes
16,342
I am not sure I understand this.

Was this entire thing just a waste of lawyer and court time?

Feels like it was an attempt to beg our overlords to let them keep selling their loophole guns for the time being until they can legislate that away too. IF IT PLEASE THE CROWN, MAY I SELL GUNS YOU ALREADY TOLD ME I COULD SELL?
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
77,349
Likes
53,510
Feels like it was an attempt to beg our overlords to let them keep selling their loophole guns for the time being until they can legislate that away too. IF IT PLEASE THE CROWN, MAY I SELL GUNS YOU ALREADY TOLD ME I COULD SELL?

My impression is - "hail mary pass attempt with a contingency stuffed in it to give it more legal substance/basis. "

Does make me wonder what kind of evil shit is buried though, it's pretty obvious the AG "settled" or whatever because they didn't want this to go into the
discovery process. My gut instinct is it would contain things that looked bad and probably linked her back to the "Cabal" I speak of all the time here, even if she "agrees with them" the
AG taking marching orders/directions from other moonbats is a bad look.

-Mike
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jul 30, 2009
Messages
4,716
Likes
530
The way I read it is, the court neutered the case but allowed it to proceed in a limited manner:

"Court issued a decision on March, 2018 which allowed the case to proceed. In its order, the Court decided that the plaintiffs could not bring a facial vagueness challenge to the notice, meaning that the potential relief would be limited only to whether the notice was too vague to apply to the firearms listed in the complaint "

Thus, after that point, effectively constraining the entire thing to the handful of guns mentioned specifically in the body of the complaint, like Tavor, .22 LR AR clones, M1A/MK14 blah blah. In other words, stuff that most people are already selling at this point but the plaintiffs were unsure about selling because the AG never answered their questions.

-Mike

In my (IANAL) reading through the case documents, I believe you are exactly correct, unfortunately...

The Attorney General correctly states that Plaintiff's remaining claims only concern application of the Enforcement Notice to the following semi-automatic rifles: (1) the Smith & Wesson M&P 15-22 and other .22 caliber rimfire AR-15 style rifles; (2) the Springfield Armory MIA; (3) the IWI Tavor; (4) the Kel-Tec RFB; (5) the FN PS90; (6) the Kel-Tech Sub 2000; and (7) the Beretta CX4 Storm.
 

amm5061

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jun 20, 2016
Messages
7,371
Likes
5,791
Location
Holliston, MA
Yep. All a big nothing apparently... [thinking]

Bingo. Only applies to shit we already know are not "assault weapons" and stores only stopped selling in the couple of months immediately following Healy Bullshit Day.

It's just the final nail in the coffin of the NSSF suit. It was pretty much dead as soon as the courts neutered it anyway.
 

M125X

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Nov 24, 2013
Messages
1,631
Likes
1,043
Bingo. Only applies to shit we already know are not "assault weapons" and stores only stopped selling in the couple of months immediately following Healy Bullshit Day.

It's just the final nail in the coffin of the NSSF suit. It was pretty much dead as soon as the courts neutered it anyway.
You are probably correct. Yet I am still holding onto that sliver of hope that it is instead what we originally thought... where can we get some official word or have a lawyer comment?
 
Top Bottom