FPC Challenge to MA Handgun Roster

[pastera]

How do background checks and "data sharing" (whatever you mean by that) remove the reason for "the lists"? I am not for them, but I don't see the overlap here.

Try reading - I specifically called out interstate purchase which was restricted because a prohibited person could cross state lines where records weren't easily found. BS reason but that's the history.
SCOTUS may simply fix the problem across all of the restrion states by removing an antiquated, unnecessary restriction.

What is "Bolland"? Have not heard of that one yet.

Boland v. Bonta | Michel & Associates, P.C.

A little light reading.

Was it you or Picton who keeps saying how long things will take? I have a feeling they could be playing ping pong for years with this.

Like this:

Both of us have said that it will happen but will take time.
If the 1st plays ping pong then SCOTUS will scoop up the case. I will need to look up the separate concurrence in one of the NY cases where I believe Alito revealed that if prompt, clear action on a GVR did not happen they would take the case back.

 

[pastera]

Remand back to District. Repeat!

Not going to happen - SCOTUS will take a case where a lower court is giving the state multiple bites at the same apple in order to bleed the plaintiffs financially.

Just the fact that the case was remanded for a de novo review is BS, there is no new evidence to review.
This is just letting the state take a bite from a different part of the apple hoping they can come up with a different basis for appeal.
There should be an immediate motion for summary judgment given no one disagree that the state has no path to a win.

 

[Joeldiaz]

Not going to happen - SCOTUS will take a case where a lower court is giving the state multiple bites at the same apple in order to bleed the plaintiffs financially.

Just the fact that the case was remanded for a de novo review is BS, there is no new evidence to review.
This is just letting the state take a bite from a different part of the apple hoping they can come up with a different basis for appeal.
There should be an immediate motion for summary judgment given no one disagree that the state has no path to a win.

FPC wanted this to be remanded though and the state didn’t, and to be honest the way things were going with the 3 judge panel we got this time around we were gonna lose if the 1st Circuit ruled on the merits. There’s also no guarantee SCOTUS will take up a handgun roster case unless there’s a circuit split. There are way more important 2A issues that they need to address first, things such as AWB & mag bans, sensitive places, prohibited persons, etc. A remand is better for us in the long run, even though it’s gonna take a good while to finally get this resolved.

 

[40 Creedmoor fan]

I will be very happy if the value of my preban mags goes to basically 0 if I can legally buy new standard cap mags.

I will crush my Glock pre-bans on day 1.

 

[Nightshift]

I will crush my Glock pre-bans on day 1.

There will be a serious run on standard mags if that ever comes to pass. I have a list already made up. Couple grand easy!!!

 

[drgrant]

Is this why there is a shit load of GLOCKS for sale even on this site?

Glocks are a CMR940 issue not roster per se. But cmr940 itself is a joke anyways.

 

[drgrant]

I think so. "Investment" in Glocks was always a Massachusetts thang. What other plastic gun could you pay a premium for and actually have it hold it's full inflated purchase price over time? And let's not even mention the super-insane prices people have paid for pre-ban Glock magazines. Yikes!!!

If that is ending, Glock investors are soooo screwed!

Never was. It's just flippers. They will lose nothing, unless they're really stupid.

 

[pastera]

FPC wanted this to be remanded though and the state didn’t, and to be honest the way things were going with the 3 judge panel we got this time around we were gonna lose if the 1st Circuit ruled on the merits. There’s also no guarantee SCOTUS will take up a handgun roster case unless there’s a circuit split. There are way more important 2A issues that they need to address first, things such as AWB & mag bans, sensitive places, prohibited persons, etc. A remand is better for us in the long run, even though it’s gonna take a good while to finally get this resolved.

If the 1st ping pong the case the roster won't be the reason for cert - it will be for abusing the court's authority.

 

[KBCraig]

Would current machine gun owners be rejoicing or grieving if there were a decision requiring the ATF to accept registration applications for new guns?

Speculators would cry, while collectors and shooters would rejoice.

The loss in value would be overcome by the new post-'86 toys available on the market.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

If the 1st ping pong the case the roster won't be the reason for cert - it will be for abusing the court's authority.

Well the 1st circuit said do the case over and apply Bruen. The question is how far is MA willing to push it? How far down the rabbit hole are they willing to let themselves go to survive? I just don't think that with citizen journalism today it will be possible to escape unscathed. The left in MA is far far too invested to risk losing their grip on power here especially since the left wing sheep are cancel culture addicts.

 

[milktree]

Well the 1st circuit said do the case over and apply Bruen. The question is how far is MA willing to push it? How far down the rabbit hole are they willing to let themselves go to survive? I just don't think that with citizen journalism today it will be possible to escape unscathed. The left in MA is far far too invested to risk losing their grip on power here especially since the left wing sheep are cancel culture addicts.

The really idiotic part of this strategy is that there's no way the ruling party will stop being the ruling party. Imagine if the party position was, "In light of Bruen, we will no longer be enforcing the AWB or any of the roster requirements. The Supreme Court has spoken and we must respect the rule of law." Imagine that. How does that change anything? Whose vote would that change? It's not like a single left leaning democrat will decide, "they're not left enough for me, I'm going to vote "R" next time, and there's probably some single issue voters who would generally vote "R", *would* vote "D" as a result.


They're going to lose, they know it, and pretending they're not just makes them look weak. Accepting the loss rather than having it beaten out of them at least shows some integrity.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

The really idiotic part of this strategy is that there's no way the ruling party will stop being the ruling party. Imagine if the party position was, "In light of Bruen, we will no longer be enforcing the AWB or any of the roster requirements. The Supreme Court has spoken and we must respect the rule of law." Imagine that. How does that change anything? Whose vote would that change? It's not like a single left leaning democrat will decide, "they're not left enough for me, I'm going to vote "R" next time, and there's probably some single issue voters who would generally vote "R", *would* vote "D" as a result.


They're going to lose, they know it, and pretending they're not just makes them look weak. Accepting the loss rather than having it beaten out of them at least shows some integrity.

I'm saying that right now, in legal briefs, blue states as part of the text, history and tradition are using laws about disarming Indians and black slaves, often times quoting early 19th slave laws. The question I have is how far will the left dip their moral virtue signaling into the well of racism as way of defending gun control especially when news gets out that they're doing it. The average street liberal with a brain full of putty isn't going to change, they're vote blue no matter who. But the average minority is going to start thinking "Is that what putty head really thinks about me" to which the answer is yes that's exactly what they think.

 

[safetyfirst2125]

The question I have is how far will the left dip their moral virtue signaling into the well of racism

let me stop ya right there….ALL the way of course. Into the abyss. This case is going to be freak show of epic proportions. They will never give up or give in. Even if SCOTUS rules, they’ll ignore it. They just don’t care.

 

[pastera]

I'm saying that right now, in legal briefs, blue states as part of the text, history and tradition are using laws about disarming Indians and black slaves, often times quoting early 19th slave laws. The question I have is how far will the left dip their moral virtue signaling into the well of racism as way of defending gun control especially when news gets out that they're doing it. The average street liberal with a brain full of putty isn't going to change, they're vote blue no matter who. But the average minority is going to start thinking "Is that what putty head really thinks about me" to which the answer is yes that's exactly what they think.

They don't care about bringing up their racist past because they own the media and know their voters to be simpleton followers that will never look for the truth. Further given the state of education, the average voters doesn't have the ability to comprehend the case documents if they ever tried.
And by they, I mean both democrats and republicans.

 

[wcorey]

let me stop ya right there….ALL the way of course. Into the abyss. This case is going to be freak show of epic proportions. They will never give up or give in. Even if SCOTUS rules, they’ll ignore it. They just don’t care.

Well, don't we then get to bring on the civil rights abuse cases...?

 

[VetteGirlMA]

They don't care about bringing up their racist past because they own the media and know their voters to be simpleton followers that will never look for the truth. Further given the state of education, the average voters doesn't have the ability to comprehend the case documents if they ever tried.
And by they, I mean both democrats and republicans.

There's way to shine a light on this. I refuse to let the left get a free pass for their internalized racism.

 

[pastera]

Well, don't we then get to bring on the civil rights abuse cases...?

They will simply state that it is you who chose to not buy an approved handgun or seek one on the secondary market.
It's not their fault the manufacturer didn't want to sell in the state or you were too lazy to research methods of obtaining a particular firearm. Then they will parade out the registration database and show that other motivated buyers were able to obtain the same gun so it's only on you.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

I have a lot of money “invested” in pre-ban full capacity magazines.

I would love to have that “investment” get reduced.

This is another one of those things I could never understand from the antis. I can own as many 1980s era AR magazines. As many as I want. But don't you dare try and buy something new because it's dangerous, unusual and you'll shoot your eye out. But the thing that was made yesterday? You're good to go.

An observation I have seen over the years and has caught my attention is that just when you think the world has run out of pre ban magazines there's always someone who pulls out a pallet of them that have been sitting in a warehouse for the last 25 years.

 

[milktree]

This is another one of those things I could never understand from the antis. I can own as many 1980s era AR magazines. As many as I want. But don't you dare try and buy something new because it's dangerous, unusual and you'll shoot your eye out. But the thing that was made yesterday? You're good to go.

An observation I have seen over the years and has caught my attention is that just when you think the world has run out of pre ban magazines there's always someone who pulls out a pallet of them that have been sitting in a warehouse for the last 25 years.

To continue that thought: During the '94-'04 AWB they claim "there weren't any scary assault weapons", but the number of new fully functional AR platform rifles (albeit without some cosmetic features) in private hands skyrocketed. But... as they claim, murder went down! Their logic doesn't hold up to the to a very brief sniff test, never mind any sort of basic scrutiny.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

let me stop ya right there….ALL the way of course. Into the abyss. This case is going to be freak show of epic proportions. They will never give up or give in. Even if SCOTUS rules, they’ll ignore it. They just don’t care.

I don't think so. It's a double standard problem. You can't say "I stand up against racism and blah blah blah" and then refuse to stand up against racism in court. In fact peddle actual racism instead.

There have been some academics who said "well it's part of the historical analysis", but to me that is the most intellectually weak argument because what is really being said is "Look I know something really bad happened in the past and this thing from the past was bad, but if you say to us that the bad thing was justifiable then we can use it as a vehicle into the future or to justify our actions today".

I think there's a point where the left throws in the towel and that point is fast approaching. You can't stand on the ground of racism and claim anti-racism without running into contradictions so profound that one has to choose a side and they're not going to choose racism.

The reality is this country went from 1791 to just about the early 1930s before a single gun law was passed and that includes the civil war. So a generally accepted standard that it was indeed a right existed for a long time.

 

[Cap'n Mike]

This is another one of those things I could never understand from the antis. I can own as many 1980s era AR magazines. As many as I want. But don't you dare try and buy something new because it's dangerous, unusual and you'll shoot your eye out. But the thing that was made yesterday? You're good to go.

I think they would have outlawed and/or confiscated all the preban stuff too if they thought they could have gotten away with it in 1994.

 

[headednorth]

I don't think so. It's a double standard problem. You can't say "I stand up against racism and blah blah blah" and then refuse to stand up against racism in court. In fact peddle actual racism instead.

Don't kid yourself. Some intelligent sociopath with a law degree will come up with an explanation shaped like a pretzel that people on the left, including minorities will eat up like it's ice cream. The MSM will tell everyone else that it's racist to disagree

 

[wcorey]

They will simply state that it is you who chose to not buy an approved handgun or seek one on the secondary market.
It's not their fault the manufacturer didn't want to sell in the state or you were too lazy to research methods of obtaining a particular firearm. Then they will parade out the registration database and show that other motivated buyers were able to obtain the same gun so it's only on you.

I guess I wasn't very clear in making my point.
What I meant was if the SCOTUS rules on a 2a issue, saying it denies 2a rights in a clear and definitive way and states choose to ignore it, then would it open things up for civil rights cases with huge penalties. Can class action be used in such cases?

 

[safetyfirst2125]

I guess I wasn't very clear in making my point.
What I meant was if the SCOTUS rules on a 2a issue, saying it denies 2a rights in a clear and definitive way and states choose to ignore it, then would it open things up for civil rights cases with huge penalties. Can class action be used in such cases?

Democrats view SCOTUS as illegitimate. They will ignore like in NY case. Just ban guns everywhere.

 

[milktree]

The reality is this country went from 1791 to just about the early 1930s before a single gun law was passed and that includes the civil war.

While it's obvious that the number of gun laws exploded after the civil war to keep black people from owning guns, I don't think it's accurate to say "a single gun law". e.g.: There were laws to prevent American Indians from having guns from the very beginning (clearly racist) and laws in places like Tombstone in the 1880s against carrying guns (more likely public safety).

In any case, it's probably not a great argument to say there weren't *any* laws, 'cuz it's so easily disprovable.

 

[Coyote33]

Democrats view SCOTUS as illegitimate. They will ignore like in NY case. Just ban guns everywhere.

I wonder if it will come down to 2 sides, either FOR or AGAINST the Supreme Court, or reformation of the Supreme Court. It looks like this will be the battle, and maybe the line.

 

[pastera]

I guess I wasn't very clear in making my point.
What I meant was if the SCOTUS rules on a 2a issue, saying it denies 2a rights in a clear and definitive way and states choose to ignore it, then would it open things up for civil rights cases with huge penalties. Can class action be used in such cases?

The problem is that the states are smart enough to stage the infringement such that it is just enough different than the existing case law to side step "knowingly" infringing.
I'm sure class action could be taken but it would be hard since each town administers their licensing.

 

[safetyfirst2125]

Democrats view SCOTUS as illegitimate. They will ignore like in NY case. Just ban guns everywhere.

Democrat’s contempt for the law and judicial system, except as a weapon to bludgeon their political enemies, couldn’t be clearer.


View: https://twitter.com/washtimes/status/1645079689625587712?s=46&t=bv1C9X-IfKErpXk7VC470g

 

[Waher]

... laws in places like Tombstone in the 1880s against carrying guns (more likely public safety)...

Tombstone's ordinance provided permits to residents. It was effectively an ordinance against transient non-residents that didn't have regular business in town.

 

[milktree]

Tombstone's ordinance provided permits to residents. It was effectively an ordinance against transient non-residents that didn't have regular business in town.

That’s good to know. Where can I look that up for when some anti needs proof?

But none the less, that law, which existed ad a law, is evidence of licensing.