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.
This is not a quick fix. It will take a lot of time, energy, and money. GOAL made it clear in one of their recent podcasts that they HAVE reached out to all the big 2A groups to help coordinate the legal challenges. The law IS going to he challenged in court. However, the law cannot he challenged as a whole. It must be attacked in smaller bites if there is ANY hope of success.
This is why we are where we are. People like you and your attitude.I wouid expect someone to call me a retard if I said the same things and was that shallow thinking about these issues.I also wouldnt give a shit if they did because I would f***ing deserve it. I'm not going to get my feelings hurt for being wrong. Sometimes I even try to learn when I do or say something stupid.
We get it you are still bitter because you thought GOAL or Comm2a was going to help your friend in whatever shit town licensing issue he had, but thats not what these groups are for. Some of us are playing the long game here. If thats what you thought they did and you were mislead then I dont blame you for not spending the money/donating.
This training thing is a simple thing for these groups to pick off (using two different approaches) and not that complicated legally.
The other things you mentioned? Are all much more complicated and have legal dependencies in play that make taking immediate action a lot more difficult.
Are you up for helping pull cable through buried conduit?
I never called you or anyone else a retard (that's not my style), and suggested that it would be relevant to look at your record as well which you posted. Nice record. I do not doubt your claim that we met but am not familiar with "Eagle Brook Grant". Are you referring to Hopkinton or Harvard when you mention being a member of your club.
If you guys need help just send me a message.
There are 4 instances of August in the bill
However, there was no emergency preamble nor any language in the bill so the current 131P applies until 23 October
I'm allready coordinating Sparky's assistance at my club via PM. Yeah!!!!!
Read my above post - while related they are very much different from a legal point of view
www.northeastshooters.com
There are so many individual issues with the bill that touch different aspects of the constitution or prior case law, it makes sense for multiple bodies to focus on different aspects and file different law suits. They can all specialize while the state trying to manage multiple cases.
The Com2a and the GOAL suits are fast, narrow and clear attacks on two aspects of the same thing
No he's talking about me, Rob. I made the comment. And he has met me before but because I have ADD I probably dont precisely remember him but im sure by like 3 pm it will come
Rahimi tossed a wrench into the works
www.firearmspolicy.org
federalnewsnetwork.com
No need, unlikely to win the idea of a roster based on a set of objective safety tests.
There are mature cases in Illinois and Maryland that will very likely moot any action we take here in Mass long before we even hit the the circuit level
Please explain what you are trying to convey - I'm not sure what "wording of firearms" means
Nope
Lets ignore my position on Healey edict for a second. If the Healey press conference banned stuff, then it was effective all the way back to 1994. She said she was not going to take action on pre 7/20/16 owners but that they have always been illegal. The new law soley makes Healey stuff (except for ON 7/20/16 which falls to the bad side) NOT COPIES OR DUPLICATES. They all fail on features. So they are not grandfathered because they were not lawfully possessed on 8/1 since Healey said ALL of them are illegal, she was just not taking action. So If Healey is ground truth, every AR post 94 is unlawful. I am amazed that people don't follow through and realize that is the complete conclusion of accepting Healey. You fail on features and lawful possession under the new law so not legal and not grandfathered even if "pre-Healey". So if you believe Healey, its a full taking of all post 94 stuff.Are you up for helping pull cable through buried conduit?
I never called you or anyone else a retard (that's not my style), and suggested that it would be relevant to look at your record as well which you posted. Nice record. I do not doubt your claim that we met but am not familiar with "Eagle Brook Grant". Are you referring to Hopkinton or Harvard when you mention being a member of your club.
I hope everyone can tone down the pissing match and work on the real issues.
- Comm2A is working to improve communication with GOAL. Both suits were filed without any advance knowledge by the other org. I hope we can fix this.
- I congratulate GOAL on filing a tightly targeted suit and not a broad based "throw it all out" suit that is doomed to failure. They got this one right.
- This is a long term battle. The licensing issue presents a time-limited clear target. The damage is immediate, clear, and a violation of the 2A since there is no mechanism at present for a subject to exercise their right. This should be (emphasis on "should") an easy win. If we prevail it is the kind of case where we are likely to recover legal fees under 42USC§1988. Comm2a has recovered legal fees in two of the federal cases we won (Permanent resident LTCs and removing the MJ conviction LTC disqualification)
- There are more specific targets than "AW ban is unconstitutional".
espite how we feel about the law, "AW ban unconstitutional" is not at present, a high probability path to a win. Losses in other states on the path to possibly be granted SCOTUS cert.
- For example, the failure to grandfather legal weapons presents a taking. To prevail we would have to prove that:
- The Healy ban did not render guns not meeting the federal definition illegal in MA illegal
- The failure to grandfather post-Healy guns that were legal, despire her claim to the contrary, represents a taking
- That a taking of leglly owned guns is a violation of the 2A
- or... That a taking requires a full market value compensation (yes, the would be a loss ... butmake such taking less appealing to the state)
- Red flag ... tough given the recent SCOTUS decision upholding the practice.
- Roster - tough, given that the first circuit has already upheld the consumer protection CMR and the Glock ban.
- Ghost guns - tough again, especially since the state did not prohibit them, just mandated serialization and registration. No gun registration scheme has been overturned by SCOTUS yet.
The difference is that the copies or duplicates issue cannot be cured but features can
Features (i) & (iv) are normally cured with compliance work
The preban stuff is not a taking based on loss of value since if the state changed course and allowed standard capacity magazines those pre-bans would lose as much or more value.
I love it. This is my line that I say all the time.
Some extent, but you guys are looking at it for a different angle than me because it’s not like I’m exactly going out and buying new production, disintegrating links and disintegrating belts. Any cheaper than you ever were.. a lot of older guys take magazines that the only thing that exists form is pre-ban haven’t made in so long… the reason why these values stay low on these things is just because very few people need or want them..
No hard feelings bud. This stuff gets us all a little worked up in one way or another.
@Sparky1911 - the challenges GOAL and Comm2A have started with are the most urgent. Basically, no one can get an LTC in the Commonwealth as of now. The law changed and requires a new training course. The new course has to be developed by the State Police.
My interpretation is that since the law does not go into effect until Oct 23, the current course should suffice. But, the MSP has a different view of temporal dynamics that I do and it is their interpretation that counts.
