FPC files motion in first circuit to vacate and remand thier lawsuit challenging the Massachusetts approved roster

Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
44,522
Likes
27,419
I agree. But we already fought that case and lost for arbitrary reasons of "because guns."
Judge Kennedy accepts the Glock manual as sufficient "proof" to grant summary judgment for the AG and not allow out side's counsel to present evidence and expert testimony in court. I think this filing targets both the list and non-list.
 

eboos

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
5,530
Likes
8,255
Location
Worcester, MA
please tell me this supersedes the NAGR dumpster fire filing?
Ignoring the argument of "Banned Weapon" and "Banned Magazine", is it really a dumpster fire? I am honestly asking here. I don't know the drafting attorney, and never filed a federal complaint.
 

Mesatchornug

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
8,936
Likes
16,245
Location
People's Republik
please tell me this supersedes the NAGR dumpster fire filing?
The NAGR case was filed on 9/7. The FPC case was filed on 9/6. They are separate cases. I suppose it's possible they get combined or that they pick one as the standard bearer for both- I know there are ways for them to do that, but have no knowledge about the mechanics.

What I mean is: I do not know that attorney. I never met him. I do not get out to Leominster at all, and I do not do civil litigation.
Not to put words in @Rob Boudrie's mouth, but I think he's pointing to the fact that Jason Guida is among the attorneys on the FPC case (Granata).
 
Last edited:

Mesatchornug

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
8,936
Likes
16,245
Location
People's Republik
Yes, I know Jason Guida is in the FPC case. I was referring to Andrew Couture in the NAGR case.
I missed that. It all makes sense.

Couture was the one on the case against the range closings. We all listened to his arguments, live, and kibitzed here. He was disappointing then, too. This is the thread; it started with a case from Comm2A but was seemingly superseded? (I'm fuzzy on that part).

He seems to swing big with haphazard prep. But I'm not a lawyer, as such my lay opinion is worth less than what you've paid for it.

(Edit: I just started digging into that one again. His filing was on the top of page 3. He came in, funded by GOA, making comparisons to abortion - as though that was at all relevant or helpful. I'd forgotten about that. A person inclined towards conspiracy might think him controlled opposition.)
 
Last edited:

APFSDS

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jul 8, 2021
Messages
228
Likes
401
Location
North Central MA

appraiser

NES Member
Rating - 100%
22   0   0
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
15,468
Likes
15,745
Sorry, Guida lost any credibility at this address when he mouthed off to the Globe on the Mill hit piece
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
15,450
Likes
9,425
is this good or bad?

I don’t know. Obviously FPC wanted it remanded for a reason but I don’t know. The district court judge who heard the case and would get it back is a 90 year old carter judge (it’s ridiculous a person that old is still hearing cases. They’re deciding issues when they’re probably going to be dead before an appeal is even finished)

If it were remanded, she could die before deciding it again, then it gets reassigned and starts again, etc. even if she decided it, then it gets appealed back to the 1st circuit. The 1st circuit isn’t a pro 2A friendly court. Active judges are all Obama, Clinton and biden nominees. Only a few senior judges are bush or Reagan judges.

If the 1st decides in correctly (pro 2A), I doubt SCOTUS takes it, so the roster would be gone. If they uphold the roster, there is a similar case in CA right now. SCOTUS may take the cases together, who knows.


In all the other cases I’ve seen since NYSRPA, FPC or whomever opposed remand and wanted the cases to stay in the circuit courts. These cases were AWB, mag limits, carry case, etc and the respective AGs all wanted the cases remanded to stall. This was the only case we’re the roles we’re reversed regarding remand
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Nov 8, 2005
Messages
30,885
Likes
9,525
THIS thread should just get merged into THIS one:




This dupe also:

 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Nov 8, 2005
Messages
30,885
Likes
9,525
DUPE!!

 

Sparky123

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
2,098
Likes
2,428
Location
Not from around here.
The government has no right to regulate the second amendment in any way, shape, or form. Many Americans forget that the second amendment is supposed to protect us from the government. Knowing this, how can the government be allowed to regulate this amendment? That's like putting the foxes in charge of the hen house.
 

oldguy68

NES Member
Rating - 100%
44   0   0
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
3,026
Likes
4,320
Location
Non-ya
Unsafe for Massachusetts consumers "they" say.

So let us exempt the police from these "unsafe" firearms so they can protect our citizens with them.
With the possibility of shooting themselves or others with malfunctioning/hazardous/unsafe firearms in the line of duty.

Better yet, let our towns supply said "unsafe" and "malfunctioning" firearms for official police use so they can be sued for providing "unsafe" firearms to the police while on the job....

Hello Mr Judge, the injured criminal I represent is suing the town of so and so of providing the unsafe firearm that may or not have shot my client on it's own.
When the state and local town freely admits it knew said firearm was dangerous enough to ban the sale of them and still equipped it's police force with them.
Even to the point of allowing it's police officers to personally own them.

Yeah, you can't make up the totally ridiculous infringement on the right's of our citizens to own the same said firearms.
But shove it in our face that towns are buying them for their police force and that the better than everyone else police are able to personally own them as well...

But don't you worry, you stupid fudd, you can still own shotguns. So there, we do support the 2A just as our founders intended! [rofl2]

From an OSHA stand point, this would be a lawyers wet dream in court if an accident ever occurred while on the job with a town provided weapon while on police duty.
Your Honor, the town supplied knowingly "unsafe" weapons that should have been put out of service due to there unsafe/malfunctioning nature..
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom