eboos
NES Member
Prepare to hold your breath for a long time.
-
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.
FPC Challenge to MA Handgun Roster
- Thread starter VetteGirlMA
- Start date
Not as long as you think. Once Bianchi v. Frosh is decided out of the 4th Circuit, other anti-2A circuits will be forced to do the same lest they risk causing a circuit split and feeling the wrath of SCOTUS. Those are cases I could definitely see SCOTUS taking up.
You’re stretching… big time.
Are you suggesting one loads a bullet into a custom case that is thick enough to withstand the force of the pressure from the powder burn, and that the person then holds that cartridge precisely enough while pulling the trigger to not only hit the primer on the custom case, but also perfectly line up the cartridge so the bullet enters and traverses the barrel?
A revolver without the cylinder is not a functioning firearm capable of firing a shot.
True. But having transferred several DW revolvers, the gun had to be completely stripped down beyond just removing the cylinder in order for the dealer to transfer it to me. Whether that’s necessary/required I dunno.
I wasn’t going to question it lol
It may be a stretch, but who’s to say that MA wouldn’t try to argue something like that in court if it ever came down to it? I wouldn’t put it past an anti-2A MA court to buy the state’s argument in that scenario.
There’s obviously a reason why that dealer is comfortable transferring the revolver in that condition. Either way though I’m sure you can find dealers transferring things that they’re not supposed to transfer, such as actual “assault weapons” and complete Glocks. That doesn’t mean they’re right.
Ron Jablonski
NES Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2020
- Messages
- 1,779
- Likes
- 4,471
Who the f lets their floor get that dirty before cleaning it? My OCD is in overdrive right now. On a ASMR j off scale that gets a 2/10.
a utube content creator who makes
Taipan01
NES Member
Think I would have dusted especially the fireplace front before doing all that.
CatSnoutSoup
NES Member
I would not underestimate the arrogance of activist judges despite potential adverse results for their cause. If the result is going to be the same for their cause in the end anyway then rather than acquiesce they may just try and run the clock out with appeals and hope for a change in SCOTUS makeup before it gets there (Justice Thomas is not getting any younger).
People say that a court, the 1st circuit in this instance, doesn't want to be the ones to force a case to SCOTUS and change AWB for the whole country, but honestly I don't know if that is true of those who wish to maintain status as pharisees of the gun control religion (hyperbolic I know).
That being said I hope you are right. The roster is another ban and I hope all these bans fall because I have (literally checking calendar) 680 days left in my magazine ban bet with my 2A legal pessimistic wife. If the ban is gone by 2/3/2025 she gives me 10 thirty round PMAGS. If the ban is not gone by then; well she hasn't named her price yet but let's hope I don't have to find out.
CatSnoutSoup
NES Member
1.) The roster is a ban.
2.) In Bruen SCOTUS reaffirmed that Heller is the law.
3.) Heller said you cannot ban firearms in common use unless they are both dangerous and unusual.
4.) Caetano said the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes.
5.) End.
2.) In Bruen SCOTUS reaffirmed that Heller is the law.
3.) Heller said you cannot ban firearms in common use unless they are both dangerous and unusual.
4.) Caetano said the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes.
5.) End.
If you're looking at people who care about the Constitution, step 5 is "End". If you're looking at the leftists currently staffing the administrative state, step 5 is "Make trivial change to existing unconstitutional situation", step 6 is "Pretend it's different now", and step 7 is "Repeat".1.) The roster is a ban.
2.) In Bruen SCOTUS reaffirmed that Heller is the law.
3.) Heller said you cannot ban firearms in common use unless they are both dangerous and unusual.
4.) Caetano said the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes.
5.) End.
From @2Aupdates on Twitter: Granata v. Campbell (1st Circuit, MA handgun roster): The panel is Barron, Selya, and Thompson https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/calendar.pdf
Two Obama appointees and a Reagan appointee.
Two Obama appointees and a Reagan appointee.
- Joined
- May 1, 2009
- Messages
- 2,182
- Likes
- 3,331
April 4 is Tuesday......oh boy... Here we go.
Just a follow up to my previous post that you replied to. Make no mistake, this is a guaranteed loss. There’s no way we’ll win this case at the 1st circuit. The only question is gonna be whether or not SCOTUS hears the case on appeal.
VetteGirlMA
NES Member
Did anyone else listen to this? It seemed pretty murky and one thing I learned for absolute certainty is that not a single judge on that panel knew *anything*, anything at all about firearms. One judge was saying "Well if you want gun X, then why not drive to Rhode Island and buy it, but I'm guessing that there are issues taking it over state lines right?"
I don't know how this is going to go. I feel like maybe 1 judge was willing to follow Heller and Bruen, but the other 2 were so ignorant of firearms that it's like going outside and arguing with a tree. I don't think there was any question that 2 of the judges were searching for an out by trying to determine if the activity falls outside Heller. I don't see how, but it will be interesting to see the legal hocus pocus that states the roster doesn't fall under Heller or Bruen.
The question of historical analogs was brought up during the session. Interestingly when asked about remanding to the district court, the plaintiffs said, well we're just going to say the things all over again so why? Good question.
I think that this is going to have to be decided by scotus and I say not because the judges themselves are going to rule against us maliciously or with deliberate malice, it's their unbelievable incompetence when it comes to guns was on full display. They just literally had no clue whatsoever. It's like trusting a decision regarding brain surgery to a dentist and hoping for the best.
------ extra filler my own experience with the handgun roster
Here's my own personal example: About 4 years ago I wanted to buy a Sig P-938 Spartan. This is basically a 938 with cerakote and custom grips. But you can't buy it in MA. I checked with a bunch of gun shops and no one had one and selling one was problematic. So I looked for personal sales and never found one. So after a long enough period of time I just simply gave up. It was unobtanium in Massachusetts.
Now to tell me that a cerakoted pistol with custom grips falls out of Heller is laughable to me. It's the most stupid and idiotic thing I've ever heard that paint makes it dangerous. If that were the case then why can I own a Ruger Wrangler, which is a pistol with bronze cerakote on it.
Fast forward a couple of years and S&W introduced the Victory in .22lr. The second I saw it I wanted one. I did the same thing and asked around gun shops, and this time they flat out told to my face they can't sell it to me because it's not on the roster. So I gave up the thought of having a Victory. I think it may be on the roster now, but after a long enough period of time I give up and move onto other things instead.
These laws regarding the roster are on their face, patently stupid. They make no sense whatsoever. There is no public safety its whoever is willing to give some freebies to Massachusetts.
I don't know how this is going to go. I feel like maybe 1 judge was willing to follow Heller and Bruen, but the other 2 were so ignorant of firearms that it's like going outside and arguing with a tree. I don't think there was any question that 2 of the judges were searching for an out by trying to determine if the activity falls outside Heller. I don't see how, but it will be interesting to see the legal hocus pocus that states the roster doesn't fall under Heller or Bruen.
The question of historical analogs was brought up during the session. Interestingly when asked about remanding to the district court, the plaintiffs said, well we're just going to say the things all over again so why? Good question.
I think that this is going to have to be decided by scotus and I say not because the judges themselves are going to rule against us maliciously or with deliberate malice, it's their unbelievable incompetence when it comes to guns was on full display. They just literally had no clue whatsoever. It's like trusting a decision regarding brain surgery to a dentist and hoping for the best.
------ extra filler my own experience with the handgun roster
Here's my own personal example: About 4 years ago I wanted to buy a Sig P-938 Spartan. This is basically a 938 with cerakote and custom grips. But you can't buy it in MA. I checked with a bunch of gun shops and no one had one and selling one was problematic. So I looked for personal sales and never found one. So after a long enough period of time I just simply gave up. It was unobtanium in Massachusetts.
Now to tell me that a cerakoted pistol with custom grips falls out of Heller is laughable to me. It's the most stupid and idiotic thing I've ever heard that paint makes it dangerous. If that were the case then why can I own a Ruger Wrangler, which is a pistol with bronze cerakote on it.
Fast forward a couple of years and S&W introduced the Victory in .22lr. The second I saw it I wanted one. I did the same thing and asked around gun shops, and this time they flat out told to my face they can't sell it to me because it's not on the roster. So I gave up the thought of having a Victory. I think it may be on the roster now, but after a long enough period of time I give up and move onto other things instead.
These laws regarding the roster are on their face, patently stupid. They make no sense whatsoever. There is no public safety its whoever is willing to give some freebies to Massachusetts.
Honestly, it's the prosecution and defenses job to educate to win their case. If the judges are asking these questions then that part was missing.
The real bullshit comes from timed arguments where you wouldn't want to waste time teaching about federal laws and such.
I listened to the arguments. Just hearing it once, one thing is for certain: we’re gonna lose no matter what. These judges don’t know shit.
The judges asked a fair amount of questions related to remanding the case back down to the lower court, which honestly would be the better move for us. If these judges rule on the case now, we’re screwed. Ain’t no way in hell SCOTUS hears this case in its current form, we need a remand to build up the record as much as possible to give SCOTUS all the ammo they need. It’s also good for a delay to possibly get a good ruling out of the 9th circuit first dealing with their roster. That way, when we lose our roster case at the 1st circuit there’ll be a circuit split increasing the odds SCOTUS hears our case.
Honestly, the lawyers on both sides were pretty bad. Our lawyer didn’t do a well enough job articulating how Bruen deals with the presumption point brought up by one of the judges, and the government’s lawyer didn’t seem prepared to answer questions about possible opposition to remanding the case. He seemed especially perplexed when one of the judges brought up the point of a remand possibly being necessary to determine how difficult it is to get off-roster handguns.
Only time will tell what happens now. Keep your hopes up for a remand fellas.
The judges asked a fair amount of questions related to remanding the case back down to the lower court, which honestly would be the better move for us. If these judges rule on the case now, we’re screwed. Ain’t no way in hell SCOTUS hears this case in its current form, we need a remand to build up the record as much as possible to give SCOTUS all the ammo they need. It’s also good for a delay to possibly get a good ruling out of the 9th circuit first dealing with their roster. That way, when we lose our roster case at the 1st circuit there’ll be a circuit split increasing the odds SCOTUS hears our case.
Honestly, the lawyers on both sides were pretty bad. Our lawyer didn’t do a well enough job articulating how Bruen deals with the presumption point brought up by one of the judges, and the government’s lawyer didn’t seem prepared to answer questions about possible opposition to remanding the case. He seemed especially perplexed when one of the judges brought up the point of a remand possibly being necessary to determine how difficult it is to get off-roster handguns.
Only time will tell what happens now. Keep your hopes up for a remand fellas.
VetteGirlMA
NES Member
One of the plaintiff lawyers said that, the only way to purchase an off roster pistol is through a police officer or finding someone who recently moved into Massachusetts and want's to sell it. Which is itself the glaring hole in the logic. Just because someone moved to MA and has a pistol I want doesn't mean that they are going to be want to even sell it. If I owned a cool off roster pistol I probably wouldn't see it and just keep it.
Ultimately, what is the point of 'blocking something' off of the roster if I can buy it from someone who moves to MA or from a cop? Did the super duper roster save millions of lives? No it didn't. The only thing it does is drain my wallet paying super markup fees for things that people in 47 other states can trivially purchase.
VetteGirlMA
NES Member
That's a pretty good point. The FPC lawyer seemed to understand guns pretty well but he was jammed up by detailed questions from the circuit judges. The MA attorney I think was just blowing smoke. He clearly knew nothing, nothing at all about guns. But in all honesty those circuit judges were definitely not gun people. They were asking questions that even the most novice LTC holder could answer off the top of their heads.
As far as your second point, what data can be discovered in order to find any difficulty with off roster handguns? All there really is are anecdotal stories such as my own experience trying to buy off roster. Even if I could run queries against the ownership records that I have on my Mac and were available online, it would be difficult to tell without have another table with the various handgun rosters. It would be some complicated Houdini logic to try and get a list of off roster guns. The records themselves are dirty and not likely to give accurate results, which in all fairness may operate in our favor because the numbers would be small. But just simply running queries will prove nothing without having the point in time roster vs. the transaction date. That's assuming that the data isn't sh*t and from what I saw on the records it was just junk data.
My guess is the number of off roster purchases is going to be pretty small if anything. Which to me proves the point that it's just a meaningless brick wall.
