Dennis in MA
NES Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 38,149
- Likes
- 33,087
What about Reilly and Harsh Burgers? Self-loathing? LolThe A.G. hates Glocks because it rhymes with something else that she doesn't like.
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.
What about Reilly and Harsh Burgers? Self-loathing? LolThe A.G. hates Glocks because it rhymes with something else that she doesn't like.
They care, but care about the desired outcome rather than hearing legal arguments and making a sound decision based on facts and law.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.
If they're so infatuated with satisfying someone's desires,They care, but care about the desired outcome rather than hearing legal arguments and making a sound decision based on facts and law.
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.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.
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 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.
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".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.
locks, stocks, docks, rocks ??? What is it ?The A.G. hates Glocks because it rhymes with something else that she doesn't like.
If MA removes the roster does this mean pre-ban (94+Healy) could be configured into AR pistols? Asking for a friend
Yep. Sent them $100 last year.FPC is the real deal.
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.Sig 1911' s are on regular roster and target roster and don,t have LCI.
Plus the AG regulations exempt guns designed solely for formal target shooting competition.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
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.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.
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.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.
Comm2A is a (c)(3)...Yep. Sent them $100 last year.
FYI: Accountant wouldn't let me deduct the donation from my taxes b/c of their status - 501(c)(4), as stated at the bottom of their website.
douchebags said: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.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.
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
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
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.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....