FPC Challenge to MA Handgun Roster

When Comm2A took the Draper case with SAF, we made it about process and these f***s at CA1 screwed us after Judge Fish Sticks (Reagan appointee) f***ed us. Apparently Judge Fish Sticks finally found a business regulation he liked... They desperately don't want this power taken away. They believe in the bull shit but not enough to ever give us discovery. They were also in on the scam. CA1 and Souter said it was clear what the regulations required, without ever stating what the regulations required. They know this is bull shit, but they don't care.
They care, but care about the desired outcome rather than hearing legal arguments and making a sound decision based on facts and law.
 
Don't manufacturers have to drop $50,000+ just to apply to get a gun approved? The state is going to fight to the death to keep that cash train rolling.
Companies with a lot of guns on the list are going to be squeezed by the AG's office with vaguely written letters seeking campaign donations for the AG and funding for the AG defense. That's how corrupt bureaucrats roll.
 
I can only speak for one and well, we aren't involved. When this case fails, we will have a decision solidly stating that all of this 93A/roster crap is A-OK and constitutional. And then we are waiting for SCOTUS to take some "guns in common use" case and hoping that there is enough in it to call into question the CA1 decision we will get in this case. But likely, we will not get it (we have fears about this coming carry case not being enough too) and then we will have a case that sets precedent and another case that says this future SCOTUS case doesn't override this precedent and you still won't be buying a glock, CZ whatever, etc;

When Comm2A took the Draper case with SAF, we made it about process and these f***s at CA1 screwed us after Judge Fish Sticks (Reagan appointee) f***ed us. Apparently Judge Fish Sticks finally found a business regulation he liked... They desperately don't want this power taken away. They believe in the bull shit but not enough to ever give us discovery. They were also in on the scam. CA1 and Souter said it was clear what the regulations required, without ever stating what the regulations required. They know this is bull shit, but they don't care.
I'd be interested to hear your take on why this case will fail(aside from "it's MA"), but understand if it's not something you want to broadcast.
 
I'd be interested to hear your take on why this case will fail(aside from "it's MA"), but understand if it's not something you want to broadcast.
The general history of the CA1 opinions on issues regarding run rights suggest that "Cuz guns" is strong in this federal district. K. Dragger summed it up best "They hate us".

CA1 upheld the ability of the AG to ban a gun based on her double secret non-list, and even denied Comm2a the right to makes its case in court, engage in discovery, and present expert testimony.

Also, look at the CA1 decision that a bonded warehouse is not similar to involuntary car towing because the gun owner is not the customer, the PD is, and thus the warehouse may legally set any terms it wishes. Our position was simple - the service is involuntary and, like towing, must not delegate the ability to impose any level of fee it wishes to a private business.
 
If MA removes the roster does this mean pre-ban (94+Healy) could be configured into AR pistols? Asking for a friend

Lol, none of that is happening and has nothing to do with healeyban garbage.
 
Sig 1911' s are on regular roster and target roster and don,t have LCI.
Not sure why you put "roster" and "LCI" in close proximity to one another. There are no requirements relative to the LCI to get on the roster. The LCI requirement comes from 940CMR16 which are consumer safety regulations promulgated by the AGs office. They require that a gun either have a magazine disconnect or a LCI. The roster is all about objective testing criteria done by a lab.
 
Not sure why you put "roster" and "LCI" in close proximity to one another. There are no requirements relative to the LCI to get on the roster. The LCI requirement comes from 940CMR16 which are consumer safety regulations promulgated by the AGs office. They require that a gun either have a magazine disconnect or a LCI. The roster is all about objective testing criteria done by a
Plus the AG regulations exempt guns designed solely for formal target shooting competition.

If you connived to get a gun on the AG's secret list you would be committing an act of consumer fraud against yourself.
 
I'd be interested to hear your take on why this case will fail(aside from "it's MA"), but understand if it's not something you want to broadcast.
Just seeing this. Well, the broad strokes are the AG's regs here doesn't operate as a ban as only a single firearm is implicated. The rest of the list is just a regulatory hurdle, one where they have zero standing on since they can't show any gun manufacturer has been denied a spot on the list. While I think in total as it operates today, the list is unconstitutional crap, SCOTUS isn't going to jump ahead and hold that now, if ever. So the premise of the suit is absurd. As a result they will get 12(b)(6)'d and won't even get discovery. What's worse, if the AG's office doesn't 12(b)(6) them, then I really worry because Glock has had to cough up a LOT of consumer info to the AG in the last few years. Every dipshit who can't keep their booger hook off the bang switch is now known to the AG's office. This could be a brutal loss.

With the NRA in shambles, there is a vacuum and filing crap like this gets attention. And it's working. Brownells is donating to them through July 4. And why, because a district court judge got it right on CA's AWB? The 9th Circuit is going to reverse him anyhow and it's unlikely that SCOTUS will take an AWB case right now. If SCOTUS didn't take ours with the threat of prosecution hanging over everyone after Healy's DNC audition (ie; her rewriting of MA law hanging all of us out to dry), they aren't taking a CA9 rejection of a district judge getting it right.
 
Not sure why you put "roster" and "LCI" in close proximity to one another. There are no requirements relative to the LCI to get on the roster. The LCI requirement comes from 940CMR16 which are consumer safety regulations promulgated by the AGs office. They require that a gun either have a magazine disconnect or a LCI. The roster is all about objective testing criteria done by a lab.
Now you see the problem with this suit. It largely treats them as one operative thing, and they aren't, not by a long shot.
 
It's definitely worth the few minutes to read it, but the headlines of their reply are:

I. The Handgun Safety Regulations Permit the Individual Plaintiffs to Acquire a Variety of Operable Handguns
This is them saying "look, there are plenty of guns you can still buy".

II. Massachusetts’ Handgun Safety Regulations Prevent Deaths and Injuries
 
There is no authority for the proposition that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to purchase a specific handgun model when hundreds of other handgun models are available for sale.
Nor is there any authority for the proposition that the First Amendment guarantees the right to speak out against our president when there are hundreds of others issues one is free to speak about.
 
It's definitely worth the few minutes to read it, but the headlines of their reply are:

I. The Handgun Safety Regulations Permit the Individual Plaintiffs to Acquire a Variety of Operable Handguns
This is them saying "look, there are plenty of guns you can still buy".

There are lots of other books you can buy.

II. Massachusetts’ Handgun Safety Regulations Prevent Deaths and Injuries

Oh? I'd like to see data supporting that. The data is from Canada and I wouldn't know her? er.. understand it? Got it.
 
This should be as simple as this:

Can and do police officers in MA carry Glocks on the job?

Yes

Then the people should also be able to buy Glocks (and anything else they want).

IF or when a gun is actually considered defective or unsafe, then the AG can get involved.

Capice?


but it's not....
 
The whole thing is a farce. Their argument is that this regulation prevents deaths and injuries. Ok, if that's the case, then why just pistols? Or maybe I shouldn't even bring that up. I suppose there may have been a time, well before I was old enough to buy a gun, back when people could buy a $50 Saturday night special, fresh in from Kerplakistan, where its unknown pedigree would lead to hand detonation. Maybe for that brief snapshot in time, one could have a partial argument. But today? If Hi Point can make a safe gun, then there's no need for this type of scrutiny anymore. And the whole, "but...but...you can still buy these gunz!" is also bullsh*t. MA doesn't qualify cars and trucks this way. If there's a problem, it's between the manufacturer and the consumer. Ends in either a recall or a class action lawsuit. People might even die as a result. But that's how it works there, and should be how it works here.
 
Consider that the MA courts, and/or the 1st circuit have already held that:
  1. Cars are more dangerous than guns
  2. One who has not inherited a gun has not exhausted all options to exercise their Heller right
  3. The ineffectiveness of the Glock loaded chamber is so obvious that summary judgment, rather a trial where both sides present evidence, was warranted
  4. Exercising the 5th is a valid reason to revoke right granted under the 2nd.
It would not be surprising for a MA or 1st circuit court to accept the "MA laws prevent death an injuries" as axiomatic.
 
It's definitely worth the few minutes to read it, but the headlines of their reply are:

I. The Handgun Safety Regulations Permit the Individual Plaintiffs to Acquire a Variety of Operable Handguns
This is them saying "look, there are plenty of guns you can still buy".

II. Massachusetts’ Handgun Safety Regulations Prevent Deaths and Injuries

Isn't the whole point of a gun death and/or inury? Oh wait a minute, mine only use harsh language when I squeeze the trigger.
 
This should be as simple as this:

Can and do police officers in MA carry Glocks on the job?

Yes

Then the people should also be able to buy Glocks (and anything else they want).

IF or when a gun is actually considered defective or unsafe, then the AG can get involved.

Capice?


but it's not....
Even more crazy is that said leo can sell any licensed person the same gun that was deemed unsafe the moment before he bought it.
 
Back
Top Bottom