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

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.
 
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.
 
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:
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 This is the thread; it started with a case from Comm2A but was seemingly superseded?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:
Not even close.

Two are known "good guns" and attorneys who specialize in firearms issue (Chambers and Guida)

Uhhhh, it's a joke, Rob. LOL


You know what you call 5,000 lawyers at the bottom of the Marianas Trench?

Why don't sharks eat lawyers?
 
Sorry, Guida lost any credibility at this address when he mouthed off to the Globe on the Mill hit piece
 
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
 
THIS thread should just get merged into THIS one:




This dupe also:

 
Last edited:
DUPE!!

 
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.
 
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:
Back
Top Bottom