FPC Challenge to MA Handgun Roster

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.
I agree that trying to quantify off-roster handgun purchases is largely a fruitless endeavor, however a remand is the best case scenario here for us and anything we can do to delay the inevitable loss and create a circuit split in our favor is definitely worth pursuing.
 
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.
Sounds like if they are OK with off roster purchases, why not just eliminate the "roster"?
 
Sounds like if they are OK with off roster purchases, why not just eliminate the "roster"?

They’re not ok with off roster purchases, they just have no mechanism to regulate them through “consumer protection”
 
The 1CA is now the most liberal circuit in the federal judiciary. I expect that at some point this case will be granted cert by SCOTUS and GVRed back to the Circuit.

Unless I missed something, this case is about the legislative roster and not the AG's consumer product safety non list list that manufacturers only find about after their products fail the magical, maybe mythical safety requirements.
 
The 1CA is now the most liberal circuit in the federal judiciary. I expect that at some point this case will be granted cert by SCOTUS and GVRed back to the Circuit.

Unless I missed something, this case is about the legislative roster and not the AG's consumer product safety non list list that manufacturers only find about after their products fail the magical, maybe mythical safety requirements.
You are missing something. This case challenges both the roster and the AG’s “consumer protection” regulations.
 
The 1CA is now the most liberal circuit in the federal judiciary. I expect that at some point this case will be granted cert by SCOTUS and GVRed back to the Circuit.

Unless I missed something, this case is about the legislative roster and not the AG's consumer product safety non list list that manufacturers only find about after their products fail the magical, maybe mythical safety requirements.

The legislative roster is also about consumer protection. Note that it doesn't apply to anyone except dealers transferring to non-dealers.
 
The legislative roster is also about consumer protection. Note that it doesn't apply to anyone except dealers transferring to non-dealers.
No. It is about "taking territory" in the battle against civilian gun ownership. Part of the opposition strategy is any ban or prohibition they can get passed, however small, is progress towards the ultimate goal. If you believe it's about consumer protection, you probably believe that person who turned you down for a date because they wash their hair on Friday night and dry it on Saturday.
 
I took it as he was being ironic as on paper both are about consumer protection, however in reality neither is. Irony is harder to convey on the internet than is sarcasm.

No. It is about "taking territory" in the battle against civilian gun ownership. Part of the opposition strategy is any ban or prohibition they can get passed, however small, is progress towards the ultimate goal. If you believe it's about consumer protection, you probably believe that person who turned you down for a date because they wash their hair on Friday night and dry it on Saturday.
 
Glocks are a fundamentally flawed, unsafe product versus approved handguns. That’s why no police officer in MA has ever or will ever be issued one.
Judge Kennedy ruled that this was so obvious that Draper (the other plaintiff) and I were not even entitled to a trial on the Comm2a challenge to the Healy list. Summary judgement - all AG's claims affirmed as obvious based on the court's reading of the Glock instruction manual.
 
Last edited:
I urge you all to listen to the oral arguments and especially how the state's legal council refers to access of which firearms are available to us peasants. The judges know absolutely nothing about firearms and the game of mouse trap we constantly play with the state. I would say we are living in a possible firearm renaissance if this gets pushed through and the approved list gets the boot.
 
If what gets "pushed through"? At most, it will get kicked back down a level ("remanded") and not much will happen there for at least 3 years, and even then, things will be completely changed for the worse anyhow. Not very hopeful at this point.
 
No. It is about "taking territory" in the battle against civilian gun ownership. Part of the opposition strategy is any ban or prohibition they can get passed, however small, is progress towards the ultimate goal. If you believe it's about consumer protection, you probably believe that person who turned you down for a date because they wash their hair on Friday night and dry it on Saturday.

@Garys is right.

The legal justification for both is consumer protection.

I (mis)read a distinction in @Garys post between the two lists that perhaps wasn’t there.

We all know protecting consumers (or anyone) has nothing to do with the motivation for either list.
 
The 1CA is now the most liberal circuit in the federal judiciary. I expect that at some point this case will be granted cert by SCOTUS and GVRed back to the Circuit.

Unless I missed something, this case is about the legislative roster and not the AG's consumer product safety non list list that manufacturers only find about after their products fail the magical, maybe mythical safety requirements.

that would be our best alternative. Get it to go to SC and them to pound it back saying, "Did you not read what we already wrote? Try again, Mo-Rans!"
 
I think FPC does great work. And I understand the conditions of oral arguments don't allow time for PowerPoint presentation by the plaintiffs to educate the judges involved. But it's getting to a point where ignorance is almost a strategy. The judges seem to agree that MA residents should be able to obtain off-roster handguns, or that there shouldn't be barrier involved. That's a better development than before. But without an opportunity to educate the court, the chances of anything meaningful happen are low. I think it would've been helpful if FPC had a lawyer that understood MA laws better because the 1st could care less about Bruen or the 2A. They have the job for life and, should they retire, will have an even better paying job at an Ivy League school somewhere.

I maintain that Bruen is awesome, but it's not as awesome as some people think it is.
 
I think FPC does great work. And I understand the conditions of oral arguments don't allow time for PowerPoint presentation by the plaintiffs to educate the judges involved. But it's getting to a point where ignorance is almost a strategy. The judges seem to agree that MA residents should be able to obtain off-roster handguns, or that there shouldn't be barrier involved. That's a better development than before. But without an opportunity to educate the court, the chances of anything meaningful happen are low. I think it would've been helpful if FPC had a lawyer that understood MA laws better because the 1st could care less about Bruen or the 2A. They have the job for life and, should they retire, will have an even better paying job at an Ivy League school somewhere.

I maintain that Bruen is awesome, but it's not as awesome as some people think it is.
I haven't listened yet. That said, was Guida not there? There aren't a lot of folks who should know that relevant law better than him...
 
I think FPC does great work. And I understand the conditions of oral arguments don't allow time for PowerPoint presentation by the plaintiffs to educate the judges involved. But it's getting to a point where ignorance is almost a strategy. The judges seem to agree that MA residents should be able to obtain off-roster handguns, or that there shouldn't be barrier involved. That's a better development than before. But without an opportunity to educate the court, the chances of anything meaningful happen are low. I think it would've been helpful if FPC had a lawyer that understood MA laws better because the 1st could care less about Bruen or the 2A. They have the job for life and, should they retire, will have an even better paying job at an Ivy League school somewhere.

I maintain that Bruen is awesome, but it's not as awesome as some people think it is.
The issue isn’t with Bruen, it’s with the 1st Circuit. They’re just trying to find any means possible to skirt Bruen because they hate the 2A. Judge Barron was clearly trying to say Bruen isn’t a factor here with the “presumptively lawful” language in Heller. Anyone with a brain can tell that language is only in there because that wasn’t an issue before the court in Heller. Those presumptions can be rebutted with the Bruen test. However, our lawyer was trash at conveying this point, which is why I stand by my original claim that both of the lawyers arguing this case were trash and ours was only marginally better.
 
If what gets "pushed through"? At most, it will get kicked back down a level ("remanded") and not much will happen there for at least 3 years, and even then, things will be completely changed for the worse anyhow. Not very hopeful at this point.
Nor am I. Don't get me wrong. I'm happy for the people who benefited from Bruen on the licensing side, but I'm not holding my breath for any real progress on any of the many other issues that still plague us. 🤔

Will I ever be able to buy that brand new Chiappa Charging Rhino someday before I kick? I highly doubt it. :(
 
Nor am I. Don't get me wrong. I'm happy for the people who benefited from Bruen on the licensing side, but I'm not holding my breath for any real progress on any of the many other issues that still plague us. 🤔

Will I ever be able to buy that brand new Chiappa Charging Rhino someday before I kick? I highly doubt it. :(
You could buy it tomorrow, if you talk to the right dealers.
 
Sounds like if they are OK with off roster purchases, why not just eliminate the "roster"?

Because keeping the roster amounts to a gun ban even if its a partial gun ban. Same thing with the AWB. They're just bans now. A new pistol model comes out and in the 49 states (maybe not CA either) are like, wow let's go out and get one. Here we wait. It might be in 5 years, it might be never.
 
The roster is a defacto gun ban and, by any measure, is a tool used for gun control. It’s clearly unconstitutional, it would never survive Bruen (how could it?), but it’s going to be a while before it makes it to the SCOTUS.

Crack downs on dealers selling “parts” (which you can be sure is going to be part of the Ma gun safety omnibus bill currently being worked on) and banning private sales are going to make this issue more urgent. Yes, right now, savvy gun owners can still obtain these handguns from private sales and dealers who don’t DGAF, but it’s beyond naive to assume this couldn’t go away overnight.
 
Nor am I. Don't get me wrong. I'm happy for the people who benefited from Bruen on the licensing side, but I'm not holding my breath for any real progress on any of the many other issues that still plague us. 🤔
It took 14 years between Heller and Bruen. There have been a couple of significant cases in between (McDonald and Caetano), but meaningful change is very slow.
 
The issue isn’t with Bruen, it’s with the 1st Circuit. They’re just trying to find any means possible to skirt Bruen because they hate the 2A. Judge Barron was clearly trying to say Bruen isn’t a factor here with the “presumptively lawful” language in Heller. Anyone with a brain can tell that language is only in there because that wasn’t an issue before the court in Heller. Those presumptions can be rebutted with the Bruen test. However, our lawyer was trash at conveying this point, which is why I stand by my original claim that both of the lawyers arguing this case were trash and ours was only marginally better.
Bruen leaves much up to interpretation. And I think that's done on purpose. The opinions weren't ready to say when historical firearms regulation start and likely also wanted to continue to give states the power to regulate. As far as the MA roster case goes, I look at people at a very basic, primal level and see a panel of judges that can essentially do what they want because they are insulated from any fallout. Being reversed or instructed for review by the SC is like a badge of honor to them. The 2A is an issue here for sure, but the but the bigger issue that ignorance and stupidity have become a viable strategy for judges to affirm their positions on things they dislike. It's almost humorous...almost.
 
The opinions weren't ready to say when historical firearms regulation start and likely also wanted to continue to give states the power to regulate.
That’s not true, Bruen made it clear that the relevant time period for historical analysis of firearms regulations is the time of the country’s founding in 1791. Post-Reconstruction era (1868) analogues may still be used, but only as a confirmatory analytic. To the extent that a post-reconstruction analogue contradicts with a founding era one, you go with the time of the founding.
 
Back
Top Bottom