• 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?

drgrant said:
NSSF press release

www.nssf.org

NSSF Welcomes Massachusetts AG’s ‘Enforcement Notice’ Clarification

The Attorney General’s agreement to clarify this notice effectively ends the legal challenge by NSSF, Pullman Arms of Worcester, Mass., along with three other Massachusetts firearms retailers.
www.nssf.org www.nssf.org

still says nothing, but formatted better for your pleasure
Click to expand...

So is there a timeline for her to update it or just a "ok fine I will be more clear"? (General question, I know you dont have more info than we do)
 
Roland Deschain said:
I keep re-reading the summary, and all I can think is that the AGO just has to clarify which hole she's gonna shove it in...

The more I read this, the less I like it.
Click to expand...

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
 
drgrant said:
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
Click to expand...
That would suck. Was the focus of their case that limited?
 
drgrant said:
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
Click to expand...
I'm betting you are right about the above, unfortunately.

I recall Comm2a not loving the NSSF suit from the beginning.
 
drgrant said:
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
Click to expand...

That would mean this post and thread is about as 'legendary' as Glock's new .22LR :rolleyes:
I hope you're wrong, but since I have little to no knowledge or undertanding other than the price gouging that goes on in the classifieds here, I don't have a leg to stand on in my hope.
 
Over the summer, the AG said that Tavors and .22 ARs are legal.

If this announcement is legendary, there must be more to this.

Can somebody smaaat tell me if ARs - in AWB configuration - like before July 20, 2016 - are legal now?

If so, I’m taking out a loan and buying 100 AR lowers before the next ban comes around.
 
The real question is whether this will change what shops will sell. My guess would be try going to one of the plaintiff shops named and see what they say.
 
Yeah I don't think this is much of anything. As mentioned, the rifles mentioned weren't truly in question (Tavor etc). I think the case became moot and this was a formality, but willing to be corrected by the smart folks.
 
Considering that the state doesn't really concern itself with our rights, I just wanted to extend a greeting to any Maura staffers that may be reading.

f*** off. You are the biggest jackboot piles of shit I've seen in a while.

- A citizen
 
So what does this mean.
Sounds to me like AG admits her announcement cant hold water and watch for a copy or duplicate clarification to be come law very very soon?
 
She is trying to scuttle the other case that is headed to SCOTUS (Worman vs Baker?) via “mootness”. Just like NYC just did. Maybe she gives a tiny little inch by “clarifying” the enforcement notice, maybe not, but it avoids a larger fight at SCOTUS. Then the state of Mass passes a full-on AWB. Which then gets appealed to SCOTUS and burns up another 5 years in litigation. . .
 
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.
 
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.
 
Well, I just read this thread and its has been dramatic.
From post one, I knew it was too good to be true. Nothing has changed, we are still F'ed in the A with Maura's D.
My credit-card was ready to spool up like a GE M134 and bag a metric ass-ton of lowers. But alas...
 

Similar threads

Philadelphia end of Ramadan event shooting: Police say 3 injured, 5 arrested
Replies
1
Views
76
LakeTrout
L
Samuel Whittemore - The inventor of FAFO
Replies
1
Views
108
413dan
413dan
damn, no taxes! now blacks are putting their heads together with arms outstretched, palms up and the middle finger extended. i'm proud of y'all.
Replies
13
Views
291
alan226
alan226
2nd Circuit Court of Appeals overturns dismissal of CT's Nastri v. Dykes (CT park carry ban)
Replies
0
Views
120
sbhaven
S
Interesting Article on the "Notching" of Firearms to Keep Track of "Kills"
Replies
8
Views
347
clampett
clampett
Back
Top Bottom