• 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

drgrant said:
Have you looked at any DW 1911? they usually don't have LCI in them. Getting the guns on the roster is pointless if they can't pass CMR 940. I don’t blame them. I don't expect a company to ruin their gun to meet the regs. Nor would i want that ruined product. I refuse to buy any handgun that's been intentionally f***** up to cater to the mass compliance bullshit. I had a few "M" sigs at one point and they disgusted me enough that I sold them all. No thanks.

ETA: these days whenever I buy a handgun it not being compliant is a selling point. I think since 2008 I might have only bought like one handgun that was compliant and that was strictly by coincidence. (Ruger LCR).
Click to expand...
Guns designed solely for formal target shooting competition are exempt from the AG regs, which is how some 1911oids have made the list.
 
I must live in a cave because I never heard of the FPC. Are they associated with Comm2A in any way?
 
I wonder if they considered including as a Plaintiff some gun shop that HAD been fined/shut down for violation of ch 140 sec 123 cl 18-21 and 940CMR16. 940CMR16 is enforced by the AG and she is a defendant. 140 123 is enforced by the licensing authority which is the local chief of police and there are no such defendants. Since part of the argument is that citizens are harmed by being unable to get guns, you might want proof consequences to the shops the violate.

Gun Parlor was fined and signed a consent decree with the AG for violations
Multiple shops gave up licenses in lieu of fines/penalties for off list sales

I have not looked at how similar challenges to the CA roster have faired up to now. They too have a ridiculous roster with ridiculous requirements that similarly results in cheap old guns being the only things available. You can get a glock in CA, but only a gen 3 glock... I guess that is slightly better than MA by some metric
 
CrackPot said:
I wonder if they considered including as a Plaintiff some gun shop that HAD been fined/shut down for violation of ch 140 sec 123 cl 18-21 and 940CMR16. 940CMR16 is enforced by the AG and she is a defendant. 140 123 is enforced by the licensing authority which is the local chief of police and there are no such defendants. Since part of the argument is that citizens are harmed by being unable to get guns, you might want proof consequences to the shops the violate.

Gun Parlor was fined and signed a consent decree with the AG for violations
Multiple shops gave up licenses in lieu of fines/penalties for off list sales

I have not looked at how similar challenges to the CA roster have faired up to now. They too have a ridiculous roster with ridiculous requirements that similarly results in cheap old guns being the only things available. You can get a glock in CA, but only a gen 3 glock... I guess that is slightly better than MA by some metric
Click to expand...
Resolution via a consent decree undermines any viability of using the consenting shopkeep as a plaintiff in a challenge.
Did I miss something? Is there some exemption for the Gen3's from the AGs finding they do not have a loaded chamber indicator?
 
SERE said:
The NRA has such a shitty reputation here in MA, deservedly so imho, that they have publicly stayed away. They do, however, quietly support the local civil rights lobbying group GOAL.

GOAL - About GOAL

goal.org goal.org
Click to expand...
Thats the problem.
Their sh*t reputation is because they don't announce they help.

All they have to do is start announcing what they are doing and people would support them.

Keep people in the shadows and your sh*t rep grows.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
Resolution via a consent decree undermines any viability of using the consenting shopkeep as a plaintiff in a challenge.
Did I miss something? Is there some exemption for the Gen3's from the AGs finding they do not have a loaded chamber indicator?
Click to expand...
I was saying that in CA you can get a glock, but only a Gen3, not a Gen4 or Gen5 because of how their rules work. Not commenting on MA crap. As we know the AG hates all glocks.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
Its a virtual certainty that the favorable CA decision will not survive both 3 judge appellate and en banc.
Click to expand...

As a resident of Not California, I'm 100% AOK with this. Kick it up the line. This judge drew a nice fat line in the sand. It's a stupid line. (Common use??? So if I invent a new type of firearm and a state rushes to ban it, it's OK???? How about USE?) But it's a big fat kindergarten-pencil-sized line.

Short of something huge coming out of the SC this year, we stand a pretty good chance that any loopholes not closed this year will be closed with this action.

Shall means shall. Not means not. Some of the few words that actually mean teh same thing in 1790 and 2021.
 
greencobra said:
i can't believe this isn't a mosquito bite for them. these companies can't write this off? i can't answer that, don't know for sure. by the way some of the people here revere dw i would think it would be a good business decision for them to open the wallet and submit. or maybe dw knows at first it's a matter of people want what they're told they can't have and/or maybe market research tells them the market for high end pistols is soft in massachusetts.

has dw ever hinted at why they won't submit? with people and companies we like, we give them the benefit of all doubts. be interesting to hear the company line.
Click to expand...

A few years ago I spoke with the product manger at DW about this he said they did want to sell in Ma, but the parent company CZ couldn't, justify the Ma circus. They sell all the guns they produce and import, so hard to justify the expense of expanding the market when the product sells out in the current market.

Sig 1911' s are on regular roster and target roster and don,t have LCI. With safety's and 10 round max capacity 1911,s are a good fit for the Ma circus.

DW 1911's seem to currently be in very short supply right now.
 
Last edited:
alan226 said:
They are 100% right and fighting the good fight. I'll send them a couple of shekels.

Having said that, they are probably tilting at windmills. They will be arguing in a Massachusetts court with Massachusetts liberal judges. Good luck and godspeed...
Click to expand...

Everyone thought the same about California I’d guess.
 
jpm said:
I don't think anyone can actually list something the NRA has done in this state besides ask for more money from us.
Click to expand...
Really? Here is a listing of litigation activities they were involved in from 2018 or so. I know you would rather whine and don't want to be confused by the facts though. Sorry.


MASSACHUSETTS
Gould v. Morgan (formerly Gould v. O’Leary)
This challenge to Massachusetts restrictions on the carrying of firearms in public was filed on February 4, 2016. Massachusetts requires a license to carry firearms in public, which may be granted only upon demonstration of a “good reason,” and it delegates to local licensing authorities the power to require the showing of a heightened need for self-defense before issuance of a license to carry. Cross- motions for summary judgment were filed in 2017. In December 2017, the district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. The plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Oral argument occurred on July 25, 2018. On November 2, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled adversely, upholding the “good reason” restriction under intermediate scrutiny. A petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court has been filed.

Granby Bow & Gun Club, Inc., et al v. Town of Granby Zoning Board of Appeals, et al
Granby Bow & Gun Club, Inc., is a not-for-profit corporation, founded in the 1940s, and operates a rifle, pistol, and archery shooting range on approximately 260 acres of land that it owns in Granby, Mass. The range predates any enacted zoning ordinances. In the spring of 2017, some property owners near the range began a public campaign to shut down the club. After the building inspector stepped down in September 2017, the Town of Granby’s Board of Selectman took over those duties and acted on three letter complaints against the applicant. The letter complaints alleged noise nuisance, safety and zoning law violations. The Board of Selectman issued a cease and desist letter ordering that the applicant immediately “cease and desist using its rifle range shooting shed and cease shooting at 1,000 yard targets from its upper firing area on the rifle range.” The applicant was not given an opportunity to be heard prior to the Board of Selectman’s action. The applicant appealed to the Granby Zoning Board of Appeals. In November 2017, the Zoning Board of Appeals upheld the Board of Selectmen’s decision. There were no public hearings or deliberations prior to the Zoning Board of Appeals issuing its ruling. The Zoning Board of Appeals did not hear or review any evidence supporting the three complaint letters other than a few aerial photos provided by the Board of Selectmen’s. On January 5, 2018, the applicant appealed to the Massachusetts Land Court (Hampshire County). The issues presented include: 1: [W]hether the ZBA can eliminate vested constitutionally protected property rights that predate zoning via a pretextual zoning enforcement action; and 2: [W]hether range opponents can circumvent the protections afforded ranges by the Massachusetts Range Protection Act via a pretextual zoning enforcement action. At the judge’s urging, the applicant and the Town have entered into a stipulation to attempt to resolve the dispute through permits, while preserving all rights to move forward with the appeal. The court approved the stipulation and remanded the case to the ZBA. The parties failed to resolve the dispute. The parties’ status reports are due on November 16, 2018. The applicant will request a status conference with the judge to discuss bifurcating the issues and moving forward with the 2010 permit issue on appeal immediately while the parties continue to attempt to resolve the upper firing area permit by hearing on the pending application.

Pullman Arms, Inc., et al v. Healy
On July 20, 2016, in an editorial in the Boston Globe, State Attorney General Maura Healy announced for the first time a radical reinterpretation of Massachusetts’ long standing gun ban that mirrors the 1994 Clinton federal gun ban and that had been on the books in Massachusetts for approximately 20 years. She unilaterally declared almost every semiautomatic firearm on the market to be illegal under Massachusetts law. Suit was filed in the United States Distinct Court for the District of Massachusetts on September 22, 2016, by the National Shooting Sports Foundation. The lawsuit challenges the reinterpretation of Massachusetts’ long standing gun ban. On November 22, 2016, Massachusetts filed a motion to dismiss. The motion was heard in April 2017. On March 14, 2018, the Massachusetts’s motion to dismiss was denied. Massachusetts filed an appeal from the District Court’s rejection of its Eleventh Amendment claim with the United States Circuit Court for the First Circuit.

Worman, et al v. Healy, et al
On July 20, 2016, in an editorial in the Boston Globe, State Attorney General Maura Healy announced for the first time a radical reinterpretation of Massachusetts’ long standing gun ban that mirrors the 1994 Clinton federal gun ban and that had been on the books in Massachusetts for approximately 20 years. She unilaterally declared almost every semiautomatic firearm on the market to be illegal under Massachusetts law. On January 23, 2017, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court, Massachusetts. The state filed an answer on March 16, 2017. The defendants asserted Eleventh Amendment defenses of immunity from suit as part of their answer. Written discovery has been exchanged. Certain defendants—the Governor of Massachusetts, Massachusetts State Police, and Superintendent McKeon of the Massachusetts State Police—moved to dismiss on July 14, 2017, and moved to stay discovery against them on July 17, 2017. Other defendants—Attorney General and Secretary of Office of Public Safety—did not move to dismiss or stay discovery. The plaintiff’s counsel dropped the Governor without discovery, and dropped Massachusetts State Police, but noticed its deposition, and opposed the motions with respect to Superintendent McKeon. Plaintiffs took the depositions of representative witnesses from the Executive Office of Public Safety, the Massachusetts State Police, and the Office of the Attorney General. Plaintiffs also took the depositions of the fact witnesses identified the defendants in their interrogatories. Fact discovery ended on September 15, 2017, and the defendants have withheld nearly all internal communications, claiming privilege. The parties took depositions of each other’s expert witnesses. Expert discovery closed November 20, 2017. On April 6, 2018, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts upheld Massachusetts ban. ILA Litigation Counsel informed as follows: “After discovery, on cross-motions for summary judgment, Judge Young granted Defendants summary judgment on the Second Amendment and vagueness claims and dismissed the retroactivity claim as unripe. The Court held that the firearms and magazines banned by Massachusetts are outside the protection of the Second Amendment, largely following the Kolbe decision. The Court held that commonality is not a relevant issue in a Second Amendment analysis, and that the proper test for whether a firearm is protected is whether it is “most useful in military service.” Plaintiffs appealed to the First Circuit. Briefs were filed by October 5, 2018. Oral argument occurred on January 1, 2019 and a decision is expected in the second quarter of 2019. Worman, et al v. Healey, et al This is a Law Enforcement Amicus Brief. Seven organizations consisting of law enforcement personnel, or which support law enforcement, participated in the brief. Consent to file the amicus brief was obtained from all parties. On August 29, 2018, the law enforcement amicus brief was filed with the First Circuit. On September 20, 2018, the First Circuit granted the motion for leave to file the amicus brief.
 
Last edited:
general disorder said:
The A.G. hates Glocks because it rhymes with something else that she doesn't like.
Click to expand...
Nope, she wasn't the AG which started the Commonwealth Jihad on Glocks and the secret AG list is a complete non-legislatively authorized fiction invented from whole cloth by Luther Harshbarger, in between framing innocent people for political gain, and codified by simps playing dress up as judges.
 
El_Guapo77 said:
I'm curious as to what goal and comm2a's thoughts are on this?
Click to expand...
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.
 
free said:
Really? Here is a listing of litigation activities they were involved in from 2018 or so. I know you would rather whine and don't want to be confused by the facts though. Sorry.
Click to expand...

So what they contributed a few bucks to a handful of minor cases that either lost or don't seem to be accomplishing much of anything. Why haven't they been doing stuff for the past 20 years or so like FPC is doing now?

I make no secret of my hatred for them, they're completely corrupt, self serving, and do not represent actual gun owners and haven't for decades.
 

Similar threads

Ma needs to get walther pdp on roster
2
Replies
50
Views
1K
CrackPot
CrackPot
Internet accuracy claims put to the test! (Backfire long range challenge.)
Replies
16
Views
450
Chevy 2 65
Chevy 2 65
This must be on the approved roster…
Replies
5
Views
459
CATI
CATI
Maine Lawmakers Urge Cabela’s to Stop Selling ‘Assault Rifles’ After Attacker Bought Handgun There
2
Replies
47
Views
1K
Varmint
Varmint
Commercial/retail space to rent in Orange/Athol MA area?
Replies
3
Views
162
Woodsloafer
W
Back
Top Bottom