Goal files lawsuit

pastera said:
GOAL and Com2a are filing related suits that attack from different angles for different results

GOAL is going against the law's constitutionalilty with respect to the training requirements and delays in promulgating the regulations making it legally impossible to apply for an LTC once this law takes effect on 23 Oct.

Com2a is going after the State Police for applying a law that takes effect on 23 October to license applications today.

Related but not the same - Com2a has a very high chance of success even in the lower courts.
Goal is playing more of a medium/long term game.
Click to expand...
Who is going after the law banning all the common use semi auto rifles and shotguns? I heard a guy from Cape Gun works on 580 this morning saying that GOA is an org that will fight for members whatever state they live in. And the radio host even used the 3 letter word NRA might help, but they still have board members who supported Uncle Wayne. The bottom line is they mischaraterized legit guns as "ghost guns" in their lawmaking.
 
Last edited:
Picton said:
But it does matter. Because there were direct, quantifiable costs to our side. It cost us time, money, and effort to file. ALL of that time, money, and effort was wasted because of their assumption that they could halt LTC applications and issuance and still be on the right side of the Constitution.

That's not just a simple administrative error. That is a grave misunderstanding of 2A, Bruen, and the concept of individual liberties. If it was just a matter of "clearing up a misunderstanding," a phone call would have sufficed; instead, they made our side pay for, draft, and file not one, but two lawsuits.

Sorry. I don't buy that anyone within MSP, uniformed or bureaucrat, values my firearms rights when the rubber meets the road. Nope.
Click to expand...
My point is that it doesn't matter of GOAL, Comm2A or someone else moved the needle.

As a director for Comm2A, I would never claim that it was solely Comm2A's suit that forced the change - it could have been GOAL's. It could be that either alone would have done it. Or, it could have been the MSP seeking legal counsel once members of the public raised the issue.

There is no way to know, and debating the issue or one group implying they are solely responsible doesn't do anything to advance our side's cause.
 
zork51 said:
Who is going after the law banning all the common use semi auto rifles and shotguns? I heard a guy from Cape Gun works on 580 this morning saying that GOA is an org that will fight for members whatever state they live in. And the radio host e ven used the 3 letter word NRA might help, but they still have board members who supported Uncle Wayne. The bottom line is they mischaraterized legit guns as "ghost guns" in their lawmaking.
Click to expand...

That's what I would like to know too... The AR-15 is the textbook definition of in common use. There is no other platform that sells more annually than that rifle. Yet here we are - living under a ban of literally the most commonly sold and used gun in the country.... or the Glock 19, as another example...

I would like to see these orgs (Comm2A and GOAL) stop nipping around the edges and start biting off some chunks. GOA seems to be unafraid to do so. Feels like others pussyfoot around.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
My point is that it doesn't matter of GOAL, Comm2A or someone else moved the needle.

As a director for Comm2A, I would never claim that it was solely Comm2A's suit that forced the change - it could have been GOAL's. It could be that either alone would have done it. Or, it could have been the MSP seeking legal counsel once members of the public raised the issue.

There is no way to know, and debating the issue or one group implying they are solely responsible doesn't do anything to advance our side's cause.
Click to expand...

I was careful, in my post, not to credit either GOAL or Comm2A. Like you, I value both lawsuits.

What I don't value is the word "defy" as applied to what the MSP is saying to the governor and legislature. That usually suggests they're deciding to refuse to do something. The truth is that if they could, the MSP would probably go even farther than this law allows.

The headline lets the MSP off the hook.
 
ThePreBanMan said:
That's what I would like to know too... The AR-15 is the textbook definition of in common use. There is no other platform that sells more annually than that rifle. Yet here we are - living under a ban of literally the most commonly sold and used gun in the country.... or the Glock 19, as another example...
Click to expand...
We (Comm2A) litigated the Glock ban. The first Circuit retired SCOTUS Judge Kennedy wrote the summary judgment whch was basically "All claims made by AG accepted, all claims by plaintinff rejected, summary judgment for defendant". He stated it was "obvious" for the instrution manual that Glock does not have a loaded chamber indicator and thus no trial was needed (accepting the AG's authority to ban guns wihtout a loaded chmber indicator as a given).
 
Picton said:
I was careful, in my post, not to credit either GOAL or Comm2A. Like you, I value both lawsuits.

What I don't value is the word "defy" as applied to what the MSP is saying to the governor and legislature. That usually suggests they're deciding to refuse to do something. The truth is that if they could, the MSP would probably go even farther than this law allows.

The headline lets the MSP off the hook.
Click to expand...
As I have been saying all along, both my own thoughts, and as a member of the Comm2A Board, both suits targeted the new law in different manners. Comm2A dealt with the "As Applied" aspect of the law, meaning how the actual implementation was flawed at this time as it basically rendered the LTC process subject to an indefinite administrative hold.

GOAL's case (and again, I don't speak for GOAL) was targeted at the validity of the law itself.

The Comm2A case was aimed to compel the State Police to pump the brakes on implementation of the law before the effective date of the law. This was (in our eyes) an important stop-gap to stop the unjust law from taking effect since it is easier to walk back a law that hasn't taken effect than it is to walk back a law that is in full effect. (Hard to unring a bell)

There is going to continue to be overlap in cases, and we need effective communication between all stakeholders in the process.

Comm2A has been litigating cases for around 15 years and out legal partners know how to get the most out of each bite at the apple.
 
Last edited:
Rob Boudrie said:
Things suck a lot less in MA than they would if GOAL did not exist. One needs to exercise care not letting perfection be the enemy of the good.
Click to expand...

How could things suck worse than they do now? Not being snarky. This is as bad as it gets without full on confiscation. I really don’t see how an argument can be made that GOAL has prevented things from being worse than they would be without them. The only thing that’s ever made MA better for gun ownership was Bruen.
 
Darksideblues42 said:
As I have been saying all along, both my own thoughts, and as a member of the Comm2A Board, both suits targeted the new law in different manners. Comm2A dealt with the "As Applied" aspect of the law, meaning how the actual implementation was flawed at this time as it basically rendered the LTC process subject to an indefinite administrative hold.

GOAL's case (and again, I don't speak for GOAL) was targeted at the validity of the law itself.

The Comm2A case was aimed to compel the State Police to pump the brakes on implementation of the law before the effective date of the law. This was (in our eyes) an important stop-gap to stop the unjust law from taking effect since it is easier to walk back a law that hasn't taken effect than it is to walk back a law that is in full effect. (Hard to unring a bell)

There is going to continue to be overlap in cases, and we need effective communication between all stakeholders in the process.

Comm2A has been litigating cases for around 15 years and out legal partners know how to beat get the most out of each bite at the apple.
Click to expand...
I think you need to reread GOAL's filing. They made no challenge to the validity of the law. Only the complete hold on issuing LTCs that the MSP implemented because they could not comply with the law.
With the MSP now continuing to issue while the new process and requirements are implemented, the GOAL suite goes away. If it had been about the law itself, it would still be a thing.
 
42! said:
I think you need to reread GOAL's filing. They made no challenge to the validity of the law. Only the complete hold on issuing LTCs that the MSP implemented because they could not comply with the law.
With the MSP now continuing to issue while the new process and requirements are implemented, the GOAL suite goes away. If it had been about the law itself, it would still be a thing.
Click to expand...
I suggest you read the complaint again. It (in short) claims the LTC process in its entirety is unlawful under Bruen, otherwise, individuals who already have an LTC as some of the plaintiffs in the GOAL case already do, would have no standing since the process has not changed for those who already have an LTC.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
We (Comm2A) litigated the Glock ban. The first Circuit retired SCOTUS Judge Kennedy wrote the summary judgment whch was basically "All claims made by AG accepted, all claims by plaintinff rejected, summary judgment for defendant". He stated it was "obvious" for the instrution manual that Glock does not have a loaded chamber indicator and thus no trial was needed (accepting the AG's authority to ban guns wihtout a loaded chmber indicator as a given).
Click to expand...

That sounds fine. So - the G19 doesn't have what the AG considers to be a chamber loaded indicator. Is the gun still not in "common use"? It's the most popular handgun on the planet. There are more Glock 19s in this country than cars on the roads.
 
ThePreBanMan said:
That sounds fine. So - the G19 doesn't have what the AG considers to be a chamber loaded indicator. Is the gun still not in "common use"? It's the most popular handgun on the planet. There are more Glock 19s in this country than cars on the roads.
Click to expand...
Cuz mura.

I heard she carry’s a Glock 43. (This was from a solid confident)
 
MA's strategy with the passing of these unconstitutional laws reminds me of the model that the scummy pharmaceutical companies have used, in that they know the drugs they are selling are harmful, but they also know that they will make an obscene amount of money from them, so that even if/when they get sued and lose, they will still win in the end.

Healey and her cronies are doing the same damn thing. They get their laws and their talking points knowing full well that it will take years in court to fix them, if ever.

Want to fix this? Start working on replacing judges, the same way the woke outrage mob is after SCOTUS.
 
Back
Top Bottom