1. 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.

  2. Dismiss Notice

GOAL wants to go to SCOTUS

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by GhostFF, Jun 7, 2019.

  1. Boston4567

    Boston4567 NES Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2018
    Messages:
    498
    Likes Received:
    416
    Location:
    Merrimack Valley
    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.
     

  2. C. Stockwell

    C. Stockwell

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2018
    Messages:
    878
    Likes Received:
    681
    Location:
    RI
    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.
     
    Mesatchornug, Boston4567 and AHM like this.
  3. M60

    M60 NES Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    4,408
    Likes Received:
    2,761
    Location:
    campdown racetrack
    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.
     
    Greg likes this.
  4. Boston4567

    Boston4567 NES Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2018
    Messages:
    498
    Likes Received:
    416
    Location:
    Merrimack Valley
    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.
     
  5. C. Stockwell

    C. Stockwell

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2018
    Messages:
    878
    Likes Received:
    681
    Location:
    RI
    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.
     
  6. Boston4567

    Boston4567 NES Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2018
    Messages:
    498
    Likes Received:
    416
    Location:
    Merrimack Valley
    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.
     
  7. Coda

    Coda NES Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2019
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    209
    Location:
    Over the Hills and Far Away
    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.
     
  8. Dennis in MA

    Dennis in MA NES Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    13,704
    Likes Received:
    5,797
    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.
     
    Horrible and Boston4567 like this.
  9. Super99Z

    Super99Z NES Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,709
    Likes Received:
    2,294
    Location:
    South Shore
    Counting on one branch of the Gov to fix another branch, WCGW?
     
  10. Bob P

    Bob P NES Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2008
    Messages:
    10,805
    Likes Received:
    2,314
    Location:
    Texas

    This is the logic of a battered wife.
     
    Boston4567 likes this.
  11. Boston4567

    Boston4567 NES Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2018
    Messages:
    498
    Likes Received:
    416
    Location:
    Merrimack Valley
    You may be right. But the alternative to fighting is this:


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

    Coda NES Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2019
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    209
    Location:
    Over the Hills and Far Away
    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.
     
    Dennis in MA likes this.
  13. babygorilla

    babygorilla NES Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2015
    Messages:
    1,935
    Likes Received:
    664
    Location:
    South Shore of Massachusetts
    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.....
     
    Coyote33 and Dennis in MA like this.

Share This Page