GOAL wants to go to SCOTUS

[Dench]

This is a huge constitutional issue and it affects hundreds of thousands of tax paying citizens. I don't think it's possible, for SCOTUS to vote not to hear it. Not only that, but I believe that SCOTUS, will not take kindly, to a rogue, state A.G., making up her own self serving laws. A SCOTUS pee pee slap is certainly in order here.

The fact that it is a big issue and a controversial and ultra partisan subject thats caselaw will have major political aftershocks is the reason that SCOTUS has been dodging 2A cases one after another. And the ones they do take are intentional lame/mild/freebies so they can go home at night at think they did something about the issues regarding 2A.

This is a simple case. It's a violation of Common Use. The real problem is how many of those court justices actually want to say that? Not many from what history says.

 

[M60]

I hope your right ..

It didn’t seem to bother them at all when the President banned bump stocks by executive fiat and the American people were forced to turn their property to the government.

Bob

There is a big difference though. Bump stocks weren't brought to SCOTUS. Healy will be.

 

[M60]

That’s a lofty pipe dream. I hope they too see it that way but I sure as shit wouldn’t count on it.

Lofty pipe dream no. Accurate appraisal yes. We'll see who's right, that's for sure.

 

[HorizontalHunter]

There is a big difference though. Bump stocks weren't brought to SCOTUS. Healy will be.

Hopefully they will opt to hear it.

They had the opportunity to hear the appeal to the bump stock ban and declined. Declining is a decision in itself as it allowed the ban to go into effect.

To be clear, I personally don’t care about bump stocks. I have no use for them, but what happened was very very wrong.

Bob

 

[M60]

The fact that it is a big issue and a controversial and ultra partisan subject thats caselaw will have major political aftershocks is the reason that SCOTUS has been dodging 2A cases one after another. And the ones they do take are intentional lame/mild/freebies so they can go home at night at think they did something about the issues regarding 2A.

This is a simple case. It's a violation of Common Use. The real problem is how many of those court justices actually want to say that? Not many from what history says.

SCOTUS isn't stupid. They know that to many eyes are on this to blow it off. They also know that if they don't act on this case, they have told every AG in America that it's ok to make up their own laws and constitutional changes. No my friend. SCOTUS will hear this case. They have no realistic choice but to hear it.

 

[M60]

Hopefully they will opt to hear it.

They had the opportunity to hear the appeal to the bump stock ban and declined. Declining is a decision in itself as it allowed the ban to go into effect.

To be clear, I personally don’t care about bump stocks. I have no use for them, but what happened was very very wrong.

Bob

There's no question that the bump stock ban was wrong.

 

[DitchDigger]

In

 

[Dench]

SCOTUS isn't stupid. They know that to many eyes are on this to blow it off. They also know that if they don't act on this case, they have told every AG in America that it's ok to make up their own laws and constitutional changes. No my friend. SCOTUS will hear this case. They have no realistic choice but to hear it.

I hope you're right. It would be awesome if they did and pretty much a win by default.

I just dont have the faith in them that you do.

 

[M60]

I understand why some of you feel the way you do. Sometimes it feels like all we do is lose. But as Col. Hal Moore said, " Nah, we're goina win this one".

 

[Dench]

I understand why some of you feel the way you do. Sometimes it feels like all we do is lose. But as Col. Hal Moore said, " Nah, wer're goina win this one".

It's not that I'm afraid we'll lose. I knew along with everyone else, yourself included that this had to end up in SCOTUS due to the reality of the subject and the partisan nature of it.

If it gets to SCOTUS and they take it, I think theres a 99.99% chance we get mostly what we want out of it. I just don't think they'll take it. It's not really a loss because I'm sure someone will try something similar via a different angle like the rest of the country has been doing for 10+ years, but it's just kicking the can down the road indefinitely which I think is SCOTUS's most likely move.

 

[HorizontalHunter]

It's not that I'm afraid we'll lose. I knew along with everyone else, yourself included that this had to end up in SCOTUS due to the reality of the subject and the partisan nature of it.

If it gets to SCOTUS and they take it, I think theres a 99.99% chance we get mostly what we want out of it. I just don't think they'll take it. It's not really a loss because I'm sure someone will try something similar via a different angle like the rest of the country has been doing for 10+ years, but it's just kicking the can down the road indefinitely which I think is SCOTUS's most likely move.

My thoughts exactly.

It just sucks that we have to expend a ton of resources in terms of money and man hours to try and hang on to a clearly defined right as they try their best to dismantle it piece by piece and it ALWAYS seems to need to go to the Supreme Court in the hope that they will hear it.

Bob

 

[M60]

It's not that I'm afraid we'll lose. I knew along with everyone else, yourself included that this had to end up in SCOTUS due to the reality of the subject and the partisan nature of it.

If it gets to SCOTUS and they take it, I think theres a 99.99% chance we get mostly what we want out of it. I just don't think they'll take it. It's not really a loss because I'm sure someone will try something similar via a different angle like the rest of the country has been doing for 10+ years, but it's just kicking the can down the road indefinitely which I think is SCOTUS's most likely move.

This time I really think were going to win if we're ever going to. We've got the SCOTUS to do it with. They'll all have to show their colors on this one.

 

[Whutmeworry]

A SCOTUS pee pee slap is certainly in order here.

Wait, Healy’s a....
Ok. Good point.

 

[FalArAk]

I am unfamiliar with the way some things work, how much does the Supreme Court charge to hear a case ?

How much money does GOAL need to go to the Supreme Court ?

 

[Boston4567]

I am unfamiliar with the way some things work, how much does the Supreme Court charge to hear a case ?

How much money does GOAL need to go to the Supreme Court ?

Filing a cert petition is only $300. The cost comes from hiring top-notch litigators at a firm with a Supreme Court practice. The cost of an experienced Supreme Court litigator is likely between $1000 and $1800 per hour. Partner rates (for the attorneys working on the brief) might be in the $600-850 range.

 

[Deleted member 67409]

I am unfamiliar with the way some things work, how much does the Supreme Court charge to hear a case ?

How much money does GOAL need to go to the Supreme Court ?

Filing a cert petition is only $300. The cost comes from hiring top-notch litigators at a firm with a Supreme Court practice. The cost of an experienced Supreme Court litigator is likely between $1000 and $1800 per hour. Partner rates (for the attorneys working on the brief) might be in the $600-850 range.

The $300 fee can be waived by filing in forma pauperis, if say you're an inmate or indigent. But yes, the real bill is hiring a BigLaw firm to handle the appeal.

 

[FalArAk]

I figured most lawyers for a specific cause do it for free for the notoriety.

I mean you just don't go to a law firm,you have to get a lawyer well versed like the dude that did Heller...How much did he charge ?

 

[Deleted member 67409]

I figured most lawyers for a specific cause do it for free for the notoriety.

I mean you just don't go to a law firm,you have to get a lawyer well versed like the dude that did Heller...How much did he charge ?

There was a financial backer from the Cato Institute for Heller.

Robert A. Levy - Wikipedia

What usually happens in an appellate case, like say if you're going from Superior Court in Mass to the Appeals Court or SJC, is that the trial lawyer hands off the case to an appellate specialist or stays on but brings in a specialist. SCOTUS is similar but more specialized because there's a specific SCOTUS bar of lawyers. The average lawyer isn't licensed to appear in a case before SCOTUS. There are obviously exceptions to this and a few guys can do both trial and appellate work. The main dividing line is trial ability versus legal research and writing and oral argument ability.

If you haven't watched Gideon's Trumpet before, give it a shot. Its the best way to explain trial versus appellate work to non-lawyers I think.

What you pay for when you hire a BigLaw firm is the best and brightest minds that Yale and Harvard Law can offer. People can crack jokes about those schools being beset with NPC SJWs, but their top students clerk at SCOTUS and then join the big firms (Jones Day, for instance). So your money goes to hire people with a year or two's worth of inside baseball experience.

 

[MagGus1820]

Relying on the good ole "Just-us" system to right a gov wrong, WCGW? When Civil War 2 breaks out, we should make sure the insurance co. executives and all the lawyers are the ones fed into the wood chippers first, that will wipe out 90% of the politicians too!

 

[fshalor]

It's not that I'm afraid we'll lose. I knew along with everyone else, yourself included that this had to end up in SCOTUS due to the reality of the subject and the partisan nature of it.

If it gets to SCOTUS and they take it, I think theres a 99.99% chance we get mostly what we want out of it. I just don't think they'll take it. It's not really a loss because I'm sure someone will try something similar via a different angle like the rest of the country has been doing for 10+ years, but it's just kicking the can down the road indefinitely which I think is SCOTUS's most likely move.

I'm with you. I don't think they will take the case. Which is pretty much go time. If they do not hear this; the process has failed. Exceutive branch (AG) at state level having the power of constitutional amendments from the frigging pen is not okay.

That's just flat out not how this is supposed to work.

 

[SgtHal75]

There is a big difference though. Bump stocks weren't brought to SCOTUS. Healy will be.

Let’s hope they hear it. That Kansas silencer case should of been a slam dunk with states rights. Either way, I hope that witch chokes on a rainbow

 

[MuzzleDiscipline]

there won't be a civil war
Scotus will not grant
It will drag on
It always does

 

[SgtHal75]

SCOTUS isn't stupid. They know that to many eyes are on this to blow it off. They also know that if they don't act on this case, they have told every AG in America that it's ok to make up their own laws and constitutional changes. No my friend. SCOTUS will hear this case. They have no realistic choice but to hear it.

They didn’t hear the Kansas case. That was a huge blow, forget the silly bumpstock stuff.

 

[M60]

They didn’t hear the Kansas case. That was a huge blow, forget the silly bumpstock stuff.

Yes, I agree that SCOUTUS should have heard the Kansas case, but this one is different, bigger and much more important. This is a state A.G., making up her own state laws, without the power to make such state laws, (we have an entire state government system that does that ) while she ignores existing federal laws to do it. We have no state law that says we cant have AR's. We have only healy dictating it. Talk about violating state rights. Anyone see in her written job description that she has the right, or is instructed in any way to make, modify or change law? The obvious joke is that as Ma. A.G., she is suppose to uphold the laws of the land, both state and federal, as they pertain to Ma..This whole healy thing is outrageous.This has to be to obvious to SCOTUS and should piss them off.

 

[Dennis in MA]

Not that you do it for this, here is the knife. Small paperclip to scale.



Pretty sharp out of the box. Liner lock. It will snap open easily with that hump, although I dislike this style of knife. It sits at my desk at work for work-type sharpy-needs.

 

[M60]

I'm with you. I don't think they will take the case. Which is pretty much go time. If they do not hear this; the process has failed. Exceutive branch (AG) at state level having the power of constitutional amendments from the frigging pen is not okay.

That's just flat out not how this is supposed to work.

If you know its not how this is suppose to work, there is a good possibility that SCOTUS knows too.

 

[Boston4567]

Yes, I agree that SCOUTUS should have heard the Kansas case, but this one is different, bigger and much more important. This is a state A.G., making up her own state laws, without the power to make such state laws, (we have an entire state government system that does that ) while she ignores existing federal laws to do it. We have no state law that says we cant have AR's. We have only healy dictating it. Talk about violating state rights. Anyone see in her written job description that she has the right, or is instructed in any way to make, modify or change law? The obvious joke is that as Ma. A.G., she is suppose to uphold the laws of the land, both state and federal, as they pertain to Ma..This whole healy thing is outrageous.This has to be to obvious to SCOTUS and should piss them off.

I'm with you that Healy is garbage and her ban is garbage, but federal courts protect federal laws and rights. The fact that Healy's nonsense is ultra vires under state law does not present a question that can be redressed by a federal court. That's why the federal lawsuits focus on things like vagueness, due process, 2A, etc.

The case that Healy's BS is not authorized by MGL is a cause of action that can only be vindicated by a state court, and that's the case that's going on in parallel in Suffolk Superior Court with Baystate Firearms and Cape Gun Works as plaintiffs.

 

[M60]

I'm with you that Healy is garbage and her ban is garbage, but federal courts protect federal laws and rights. The fact that Healy's nonsense is ultra vires under state law does not present a question that can be redressed by a federal court. That's why the federal lawsuits focus on things like vagueness, due process, 2A, etc.

The case that Healy's BS is not authorized by MGL is a cause of action that can only be vindicated by a state court, and that's the case that's going on in parallel in Suffolk Superior Court with Baystate Firearms and Cape Gun Works as plaintiffs.

Yes I understand that. We have vagueness, due process and 2A violations all rolled into this healy thing don't you think.

 

[SgtHal75]

Yes, I agree that SCOUTUS should have heard the Kansas case, but this one is different, bigger and much more important. This is a state A.G., making up her own state laws, without the power to make such state laws, (we have an entire state government system that does that ) while she ignores existing federal laws to do it. We have no state law that says we cant have AR's. We have only healy dictating it. Talk about violating state rights. Anyone see in her written job description that she has the right, or is instructed in any way to make, modify or change law? The obvious joke is that as Ma. A.G., she is suppose to uphold the laws of the land, both state and federal, as they pertain to Ma..This whole healy thing is outrageous.This has to be to obvious to SCOTUS and should piss them off.

I hope so sir! We need this one bad! If this gets to SCOTUS and they rule in our favor I will donate a months salary to the LGBT cause and even buy one of those “gay as f***” t-shirts. Lol!

 

[FalArAk]

Yes I understand that. We have vagueness, due process and 2A violations all rolled into this healy thing don't you think.

So given that MA is not the only state with an AWB,what makes GOAL think that they can get this to SCOTUS ? I'm sure CalGuns with all their money and power tried.

So GOAL is asking for money not even knowing this case will be granted a hearing ?

I dont understand how these things work..NRA is always asking for money and Wayne has $300k in suits.