• 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

If the decision is vacated and remanded back to the district court, FPC can file an injunction to stop enforcement of the roster until the district decides. Shouldn't they?
 
It doesn't matter since only a few states have rosters. California's is in the process of being struck down. It won't surprise me if the 9CA uses similar logic. Since the order refers to Bruen the district is going to have a hard time upholding it. If they do, FPC will just go back to the 1CA.

It may take a while, but the roster will be dead.

tcarter01 said:
With only Ma/Me/NH/RI/PR in the Circuit, I would agree they did not want to set a Northeast liberal enclave precedent striking it down. That said with the Circuit makeup, MA is the gorilla in the room that carries more weight in its single circuit that the other States possibly combined for many reasons. So perhaps the 1CA ruling remanding it back is with some knowledge from them and a wink wink nod nod in an undocumented meeting with said lower District Judge to go along to get along and not make national case law precedent potential , it will be struck down at the district and limits the liberal anti-2A fallout to a single place/state and judge rather than their circuit and the 1CA avoids the egg on face (possibly) if it went higher......IMHO...Oh yah.. IA(def)NAL
Click to expand...
 
This decision can also give the legislature time to devise another scheme to abridge our rights. Yes, it's a wicked Wack-a-Mole game where if you don't play, you lose. So we play so our children can be free.
 
40 Creedmoor fan said:
If the decision is vacated and remanded back to the district court, FPC can file an injunction to stop enforcement of the roster until the district decides. Shouldn't they?
Click to expand...
Absolutely they should. The Roster isn’t dead just yet. If they file the same exact (for the most part) case but with the Bruen decision and it’s rules on text, history and tradition then the Roster will be dead. Could take some time but it’ll be worth the wait.
 
tcarter01 said:
With only Ma/Me/NH/RI/PR in the Circuit, I would agree they did not want to set a Northeast liberal enclave precedent striking it down. That said with the Circuit makeup, MA is the gorilla in the room that carries more weight in its single circuit that the other States possibly combined for many reasons. So perhaps the 1CA ruling remanding it back is with some knowledge from them and a wink wink nod nod in an undocumented meeting with said lower District Judge to go along to get along and not make national case law precedent potential , it will be struck down at the district and limits the liberal anti-2A fallout to a single place/state and judge rather than their circuit and the 1CA avoids the egg on face (possibly) if it went higher......IMHO...Oh yah.. IA(def)NAL
Click to expand...
The issue with this though is that even if we win at the district court level, MA is most certainly going to appeal the decision back up to CA1. They said as much during oral arguments earlier this week. So I see this as more of them just delaying the inevitable instead of not wanting to create binding precedent on the whole circuit. They know what decision Bruen forces them to make, they just want to avoid having to make that decision as long as possible.
 
Joeldiaz said:
The issue with this though is that even if we win at the district court level, MA is most certainly going to appeal the decision back up to CA1. They said as much during oral arguments earlier this week. So I see this as more of them just delaying the inevitable instead of not wanting to create binding precedent on the whole circuit. They know what decision Bruen forces them to make, they just want to avoid having to make that decision as long as possible.
Click to expand...
Good point. Like I said in my post....

Oh yah.. IA(def)NAL
 
JFR2 said:
BREAKING: REMANDED! Case to be reheard in light of Bruen!! Great outcome considering the panel makeup.


View: https://twitter.com/2Aupdates/status/1644434376107651093


-JR
Click to expand...

Instead of ruling the decision unconstitutional and striking it down completely, they vacate and remand back to the district court. How long before the district rules (again) on the case? Yes, it’s a win that they didn’t uphold the earlier decision but they didn’t strike it down either. The courts move far too slow.
 
Echo 225 said:
Is this why there is a shit load of GLOCKS for sale even on this site?
Click to expand...
Many people will try to dump their Glocks now for as much as they can now. If this is struck down lots of people will see their perceived value tumble. Buyers who didn't want to 'go around the roster' would routinely buy 'old Glocks' for a substantial markup.
Their gravy train may come to a halt.
 
Last edited:
Tartakovsky said:
Instead of ruling the decision unconstitutional and striking it down completely, they vacate and remand back to the district court. How long before the district rules (again) on the case? Yes, it’s a win that they didn’t uphold the earlier decision but they didn’t strike it down either. The courts move far too slow.
Click to expand...
Interesting the court was told to "rehear" the case rather than "issue a new decision consistent with Bruen".
 
Rob Boudrie said:
Interesting the court was told to "rehear" the case rather than "issue a new decision consistent with Bruen".
Click to expand...
Any limit to how many times they can do this while waiting for a newly packed SCOTUS?

A) Make same decision
B) Appeal to 1CA
C) Remand to District
E) Repeat
 
Joeldiaz said:
The issue with this though is that even if we win at the district court level, MA is most certainly going to appeal the decision back up to CA1. They said as much during oral arguments earlier this week. So I see this as more of them just delaying the inevitable instead of not wanting to create binding precedent on the whole circuit. They know what decision Bruen forces them to make, they just want to avoid having to make that decision as long as possible.
Click to expand...
they can kick it up when they lose, absolutely. but then 1st Circuit has to deal with it again under Bruen decision where the rules are much clearer than say Heller, McDonald & Ceatano. These are the last gasps (Cheyne-Stokes breaths) of a dying body, so to say.
 
knucklehead said:
they can kick it up when they lose, absolutely. but then 1st Circuit has to deal with it again under Bruen decision where the rules are much clearer than say Heller, McDonald & Ceatano. These are the last gasps (Cheyne-Stokes breaths) of a dying body, so to say.
Click to expand...
They could’ve dealt with it now under Bruen, they didn’t need to remand the case back down. This is just a stall tactic.

ETA: Also, Heller, McDonald & Caetano were plenty clear. It’s just that the inferior anti-2A courts were willfully misrepresenting those decisions to uphold their anti-gun agendas, and Bruen was SCOTUS’ way of trying to nip that in the bud. Unfortunately the truth is that where there’s a will, there’s a way. We’re still seeing bad court decisions in various circuits post-Bruen.

The real issue is that SCOTUS didn’t put their foot down after Heller and basically allowed the appellate courts to go nuts for the better part of a decade. However, we’re already seeing signs that SCOTUS has learned from their past mistakes and are going to be more proactive and not let the inferior courts go wild again.
 
Last edited:
Rob Boudrie said:
Interesting the court was told to "rehear" the case rather than "issue a new decision consistent with Bruen".
Click to expand...

One of the interesting remarks I remember from the CA1 hearing was when the matter was brought up to rehear it, the lawyer said well we're just going to say the same things all over again I don't see why. They basically are giving MA another bite at the apple by finding history, text and tradition and if I know the MA liberals they'll be pouring 19th century slavery laws all over it, even though this was never a slave state. The best part now is I can shove it down their throats on Twitter if they do try it and they can't block me.
 
VetteGirlMA said:
One of the interesting remarks I remember from the CA1 hearing was when the matter was brought up to rehear it, the lawyer said well we're just going to say the same things all over again I don't see why. They basically are giving MA another bite at the apple by finding history, text and tradition and if I know the MA liberals they'll be pouring 19th century slavery laws all over it, even though this was never a slave state. The best part now is I can shove it down their throats on Twitter if they do try it and they can't block me.
Click to expand...
I think they’re just buying time, hoping a favorable SCOTUS comes along somehow, magically in the next few years. I hope I’m wrong though and it’s buh bye roster.
 
Joeldiaz said:
They could’ve dealt with it now under Bruen, they didn’t need to remand the case back down. This is just a stall tactic.

ETA: Also, Heller, McDonald & Caetano were plenty clear. It’s just that the inferior anti-2A courts were willfully misrepresenting those decisions to uphold their anti-gun agendas, and Bruen was SCOTUS’ way of trying to nip that in the bud. Unfortunately the truth is that where there’s a will, there’s a way. We’re still seeing bad court decisions in various circuits post-Bruen.

The real issue is that SCOTUS didn’t put their foot down after Heller and basically allowed the appellate courts to go nuts for the better part of a decade. However, we’re already seeing signs that SCOTUS has learned from their past mistakes and are going to be more proactive and not let the inferior courts go wild again.
Click to expand...
They weren't clear enough to be understood the Circuit Judges (though plenty clear to you and I) and I believeThomas said Heller wasn't clear enough and the majority should've gone farther like they did in Bruen.
 
rickflst said:
Hope I live long enough to see it. Courts move way too slowly.
Click to expand...
Yep, same here. I've got one foot in the grave already and my extensive team of doctors seem to want to put my other foot in there too. :(

Living long enough to see the roster abolished and standard capacity magazines back is a goal I may not achieve. 🤔
 
safetyfirst2125 said:
I think they’re just buying time, hoping a favorable SCOTUS comes along somehow, magically in the next few years. I hope I’m wrong though and it’s buh bye roster.
Click to expand...

They're going to have to deal with it now. They can be as anti-2A as they want, but they can't ignore scotus's directions. They can try to narrowly tailor a decision in favor of MA but now it's a stone's throw away from scotus who isn't going to tolerate their rules being tossed. In my mind anyways, it's just a matter of time until MA acquiesces. Like I said I am going to keep an eye on their legal briefs and I will plaster it all over social media. Choke the left until they have no choice but to acknowledge that gun control is just racism.
 

Similar threads

Ma needs to get walther pdp on roster
2
Replies
50
Views
1K
CrackPot
CrackPot
ATF Receiver Rule - FPC Granted Cert
Replies
9
Views
482
pastera
pastera
MA compliant uppers - in Mil or shipped to MA
2
Replies
30
Views
870
Lxpony
Lxpony
Shipping gold chain from Fla to Ma?
2 3
Replies
63
Views
967
Rob Boudrie
Rob Boudrie
Internet accuracy claims put to the test! (Backfire long range challenge.)
Replies
16
Views
465
Chevy 2 65
Chevy 2 65
Back
Top Bottom