GOAL wants to go to SCOTUS

[Boston4567]

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.

I doubt Jim Wallace has $300k in suits. Donations to GOAL will go to a good cause.

Should they wait until cert is granted to start fundraising? Writing the cert petition costs money too, and once cert is granted they're going to need to write a big retainer check right away.

 

[Deleted member 67409]

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.

Two points:

1) Federal courts normally work with state law to determine who has liability. If there's a negligence lawsuit in a Federal court in Mass, the Federal judge applies Mass negligence law. If there's a debt collection like a foreclosure, again, Mass law. You can have a lawsuit in Federal court with no question of Federal law. In a situation like a state official overstepping her bounds, the court would apply a mix of Federal and Mass law. I haven't read the briefs and the motions and the decisions but I bet there's a mix of references both to Mass and Federal statutes, cases, and constitutions. As an aside, there's two ways into Federal court: either have a question of Federal law or have a claim between two sides that are not from the same state that's worth over $75,000.

2) Due process stems from the 5th Amendment and the 2nd Amendment is, well, self-explanatory. You can bring a 2A or 5A claim or raise such an argument in either Federal or state court. Both of those amendments apply to the states via the 14th. Vagueness and over-breadth are simply analytical tools and are not really constitutional doctrines or rights. Vagueness and over-breadth transcend the issue of state versus Federal law. I could explain more but I don't think you guys want to know how to be able to answer a law school exam using vagueness and over-breadth.

 

[M60]

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.

Greg, healy can not create her own laws, any more than you can, but she did and tries to call it something else. She calls it interpretation.
As far as goal is concerned, it costs a lot in legal fees just to get to the point at which you can even ask to be heard by SCOTUS. You must go through the lower courts and be denied in each lower court first and pay legal feels while going through each lower court. You cant use shit bird legal council to do this with either. You have to pay for high priced spread.

 

[Boston4567]

1) Federal courts normally work with state law to determine who has liability. If there's a negligence lawsuit in a Federal court in Mass, the Federal judge applies Mass negligence law. If there's a debt collection like a foreclosure, again, Mass law. You can have a lawsuit in Federal court with no question of Federal law. In a situation like a state official overstepping her bounds, the court would apply a mix of Federal and Mass law. I haven't read the briefs and the motions and the decisions but I bet there's a mix of references both to Mass and Federal statutes, cases, and constitutions. As an aside, there's two ways into Federal court: either have a question of Federal law or have a claim between two sides that are not from the same state that's worth over $75,000.

This is true to a limited extent, like in the liability cases you describe, but I don't think it applies in a case like this where a state official exceeds her statutory authority. Federal courts don't have general supervisory authority over the enforcement or interpretation of state law; they just apply their understanding of settled state law to situations where they already have Federal jurisdiction and the state law is applicable under the Erie doctrine.

In particular, you can't obtain a declaratory judgement or injunction from a Federal court against a state actor for exceeding their statutory authority under state law. You can only obtain such an injunction where there are constitutional or Federal statutory rights to be vindicated. To the extent there are state law claims relevant to a federal case that present an issue of first impression, the Federal court would submit certified questions to the SJC and be bound by their determination. The feds wouldn't be permitted to unilaterally reach the question of whether Maura's edict was a valid interpretation of state law.

 

[Deleted member 67409]

This is true to a limited extent, like in the liability cases you describe, but I don't think it applies in a case like this where a state official exceeds her statutory authority. Federal courts don't have general supervisory authority over the enforcement or interpretation of state law; they just apply their understanding of settled state law to situations where they already have Federal jurisdiction and the state law is applicable under the Erie doctrine.

In particular, you can't obtain a declaratory judgement or injunction from a Federal court against a state actor for exceeding their statutory authority under state law. You can only obtain such an injunction where there are constitutional or Federal statutory rights to be vindicated. To the extent there are state law claims relevant to a federal case that present an issue of first impression, the Federal court would submit certified questions to the SJC and be bound by their determination. The feds wouldn't be permitted to unilaterally reach the question of whether Maura's edict was a valid interpretation of state law.

If the suit is going far enough to be seriously considered for filing a writ of cert, there should be some question of Federal law (second option doesn't apply). There's also the second Federal suit still churning in Worcester in front of Judge Hillman. The suit just can't be mostly a state law issue - it wouldn't go this far and the lawyers would know that. The fact that the Federal courts haven't posited a certified question to the SJC should be an indication.

 

[Boston4567]

If the suit is going far enough to be seriously considered for filing a writ of cert, there should be some question of Federal law (second option doesn't apply). There's also the second Federal suit still churning in Worcester in front of Judge Hillman. The suit just can't be mostly a state law issue - it wouldn't go this far and the lawyers would know that. The fact that the Federal courts haven't posited a certified question to the SJC should be an indication.

Agreed - my original point was just that if cert is denied here, it doesn't mean SCOTUS thinks Maura should be allowed to unilaterally rewrite laws in contravention of the statute. I've read the briefs and this particular suit doesn't present ultra vires state claims at all, probably for the reason that they wanted to avoid getting derailed.

 

[Coda]

I am either pessimistic or maybe I just don’t understand. I applaud GOAL’s efforts and I am a supporting member BUT……….. Let’s say GOAL gets this to the SCOTUS and Healey’s “reinterpretation” is struck down. Then what?

This is MA and you know that any win by the pro2a side is really going to piss off our lawmakers. How long would it be after that before new real laws go into effect? New laws not only banning AR’s but all assault weapons and who knows what else they will lump in there. It would seem that what we would end up with is a window while they scramble to make new laws. During this window I guess we could buy a new AR or stock up on lowers and hope whatever we bought is grandfathered into the new ridiculous laws.

 

[Dennis in MA]

So you want the fake laws so they can't pass real ones??? What's the difference?

And there is nothing stopping them from passing real laws now. In fact, I live in fear of it every day.

 

[MagGus1820]

Counting on one branch of the Gov to fix another branch, WCGW?

 

[Bob P]

I am either pessimistic or maybe I just don’t understand. I applaud GOAL’s efforts and I am a supporting member BUT……….. Let’s say GOAL gets this to the SCOTUS and Healey’s “reinterpretation” is struck down. Then what?

This is MA and you know that any win by the pro2a side is really going to piss off our lawmakers. How long would it be after that before new real laws go into effect? New laws not only banning AR’s but all assault weapons and who knows what else they will lump in there. It would seem that what we would end up with is a window while they scramble to make new laws. During this window I guess we could buy a new AR or stock up on lowers and hope whatever we bought is grandfathered into the new ridiculous laws.

This is the logic of a battered wife.

 

[Boston4567]

I am either pessimistic or maybe I just don’t understand. I applaud GOAL’s efforts and I am a supporting member BUT……….. Let’s say GOAL gets this to the SCOTUS and Healey’s “reinterpretation” is struck down. Then what?

This is MA and you know that any win by the pro2a side is really going to piss off our lawmakers. How long would it be after that before new real laws go into effect? New laws not only banning AR’s but all assault weapons and who knows what else they will lump in there. It would seem that what we would end up with is a window while they scramble to make new laws. During this window I guess we could buy a new AR or stock up on lowers and hope whatever we bought is grandfathered into the new ridiculous laws.

You may be right. But the alternative to fighting is this:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIZoVO8ZyyQ

 

[Coda]

So you want the fake laws so they can't pass real ones??? What's the difference?

And there is nothing stopping them from passing real laws now. In fact, I live in fear of it every day.

No, not at all………. That is the point I am trying to make. You are absolutely right there is nothing stopping them from making new laws now. But I feel that here in MA with some of the strictest gun laws in the country the lawmakers feel as though “we got this one” And if they lose in a court decision I think they will come at us harder than ever.

I live in fear of more guns laws every day also. But do you really think that if we get this overturned that they are just going to give up?.

Look, I really do hope we win this thing and we can buy lowers and Massified AR’s again. But the LONG term ramifications of a win still concern me.

 

[babygorilla]

Guys, The GOAL suit isn't JUST about the HEALEY directive, but also about standard mags, AG double secret probationary lists, and the MA AWB. The NSSF lawsuit is ONLY about the Healey stupidity.....