Lawsuit against MA AWB

M1911

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
27   0   0
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
41,583
Likes
11,309
Location
Near Framingham
I get it, its just those wheels turn so f***ing slowly! Then again patience has never been one of my strong points.
I never thought we had a chance to get the MA AWB declared unconstitutional. So the fact that we have a chance now is monumental. We must not blow it, or we could potentially be setting the foundation for a future, nationwide AWB.
 

VetteGirlMA

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 3, 2015
Messages
7,497
Likes
17,254
Location
western mass
I appreciate all who are fighting for us but I would like to win in my lifetime..

^---- this...I'll take this versus well maybe, someday, who knows when that day will come, but our day will come some time, and when we do we'll have our day in court and even though we'll lose in court because the judges will be deliberately prejudiced against us, we'll do it. Why not put these judges on the record, why we we have to wait to be the last ones?
 

M1911

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
27   0   0
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
41,583
Likes
11,309
Location
Near Framingham
^---- this...I'll take this versus well maybe, someday, who knows when that day will come, but our day will come some time, and when we do we'll have our day in court and even though we'll lose in court because the judges will be deliberately prejudiced against us, we'll do it. Why not put these judges on the record, why we we have to wait to be the last ones?
Bad cases make bad precedent. There is a lot to lose by doing this wrong.

Sheesh, 3 months ago we all figured that the MA AWB would never be declared unconstitutional. Now you folks are like kids on a road trip — ”why aren’t we there yet!”

Take a breath.
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
4,261
Likes
7,971
Location
The mountains of S.E Tenn
Should the AWB get tossed the state will institute taxes and fees to discourage ownership (poll tax redux) to create another lengthy court challenge.

"we didn't ban anything, there's just a $10,000 fee for transferring and a 200% sales tax"

Or they'll just turn around and keep it banned on a state level.
Just because the feds or supreme court deems one thing legal/illegal, doesn't mean states can't turn around and criminalize/ decriminalize something like, oh, the devils lettuce or infanticide.
 

Waher

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 2, 2014
Messages
27,543
Likes
55,798
Location
☦️ Boston Gun & Rifle and Braintree Rifle & Pistol
Or they'll just turn around and keep it banned on a state level.
Just because the feds or supreme court deems one thing legal/illegal, doesn't mean states can't turn around and criminalize/ decriminalize something like, oh, the devils lettuce or infanticide.
Nope, 14A incorporates 2A to states. SCotUS just made that explicit.
 

microwave900

NES Member
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Nov 29, 2015
Messages
274
Likes
486
Location
Inside 128
So how do we get NAGR to withdraw their lawsuit before bad precedent is set? They’ve had their fundraising opportunity for a few days now. They can always resubmit it in a year or two.
 

terraformer

NES Member
Rating - 100%
32   0   0
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
16,944
Likes
2,732
So let's cower in the corner because CA1 is filled with gun grabbing liberals who want to thumb their nose at a legitimate SCOTUS decision they're supposed to follow. Got it. Unless Comm2a has something better than "well let's just sit on our hands and do nothing" I don't see any reason to keep sending money. It's like paying for inaction.
Never said that. You are putting words in my mouth. You can't go 4 balls to the wall when it's highly unlikely SCOTUS will take another case in the next decade (although they will likely take something from NY to slap them down, but NY is betting they won't). You look at what you have and try to put them in a place where they can't do anything but rule for you. In Morin, the Judge literally had to intentionally mis-interpret a hyperbolic argument and then claim that because one can inherit a gun, there is not a ban on the acquisition of guns by that person. That is the level these people will go to and you need to work around that carefully.
 

BigGreen2000

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 18, 2019
Messages
331
Likes
304
Location
The 413
So let's cower in the corner because CA1 is filled with gun grabbing liberals who want to thumb their nose at a legitimate SCOTUS decision they're supposed to follow. Got it. Unless Comm2a has something better than "well let's just sit on our hands and do nothing" I don't see any reason to keep sending money. It's like paying for inaction.

I guarantee that if Comm2A, FPC, and GOAL are silent right now, There is a very good reason for it.
 

Lank

NES Member
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Nov 11, 2009
Messages
6,417
Likes
4,017
Location
Run to the hills
Oh Jesus. Para 13; you can just hear the judge rolling his or her eyes after reading this.

prediction: we will be worse off, not better, as a result of this hack effort.
I am ok with paragraph 13. The left always changes definitions to infringe. It's nice to see some pushback
 
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Sep 8, 2008
Messages
2,574
Likes
960
Location
Mass
No, it’s a strategic decision. Wait until an AWB falls in a district with a better makeup of judges. Then use that decision as precedent.


Which helps us how? The first circuit is not going to rule in our favor. Adding some nonbinding precedent from another circuit isn't going to get us there. Our only hope is SCOTUS taking a case and killing AWB's and mag bans. Because even if the rest of the country goes that way, we will be out in the cold with half assed lawsuits like this one and appeals court judges laughing in our faces while they make up some nonsense about how assault weapons are extra killy so the state can do whatever it wants.
 

terraformer

NES Member
Rating - 100%
32   0   0
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
16,944
Likes
2,732
Which helps us how? The first circuit is not going to rule in our favor. Adding some nonbinding precedent from another circuit isn't going to get us there. Our only hope is SCOTUS taking a case and killing AWB's and mag bans. Because even if the rest of the country goes that way, we will be out in the cold with half assed lawsuits like this one and appeals court judges laughing in our faces while they make up some nonsense about how assault weapons are extra killy so the state can do whatever it wants.
A split circuit decision is how you get SCOTUS to take a case... They don't like one part of the country to be administered differently than another. The issue is that Circuits like CA1 are excellent in re-articulating a case to make it about something it's not, killing the circuit split. In other words, sane judges in Circuit A rule a mag and feature ban is unconstitutional, and circuit B gets a similar case. They kill the case by making the issue about something related, but not the same, so that the two cases aren't on point on the same issue. It's why Hightower was killed the way it was despite Boston stating they didn't allow open carry and why Morin was killed by CA1 the way it was. Big, broad cases allow them to do this, along with MA's wishy washy overly broad statutory language which can interpreted six ways from sunday. Highly targeted cases that pinpoint a specific issue help prevent this tanking of the case.

And at the end of the day, the way to get to SCOTUS is for the plaintiff's to win. A few carry cases were winners at the circuit and the strategy on the state's part was to not appeal, in hopes of seeing a new court in the future. So a circuit like CA1 knows they are the last stop/foil for getting to SCOTUS and act accordingly.
 

microwave900

NES Member
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Nov 29, 2015
Messages
274
Likes
486
Location
Inside 128
Why fight in 2022 knowing you will lose, if you can fight in 2023 and have a chance?

I’m willing to wait a few more months so that my children have the same or better protection of rights that I have, decades from now.

That said, we’re all on the NAGR rollercoaster now like it or not as they gamble with our rights. If you have money to donate you can send it there. Maybe they’ll hire a proofreader.
 
Last edited:

pastera

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Nov 17, 2011
Messages
9,659
Likes
11,901
Location
Taunton
So based on responses it sounds like the best thing is not to worry about fighting but move somewhere else and take my money with me.
Yes - unfortunate but true
Want to get the AG list overturned - not happening because what do you go after?
The only way to get rid of it is to fight the restriction on out of state purchases - then the list essentially becomes moot and in state FFLs have a demonstrable harm from not being able to sell legal guns to customers who are then forced to travel across state lines.
 

Dennis in MA

NES Member
Rating - 100%
25   0   0
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
33,304
Likes
26,912
NAGR… isn’t that a joke?

I always laugh.

maxresdefault.jpg
 
Rating - 100%
14   0   0
Joined
Aug 27, 2007
Messages
15,271
Likes
10,723
Location
Texas
So is paragraph 13 the main argument? That "assault weapon" isn't a real term so therefore all laws are null and void?
no. paragraph 13 is just basically saying "we aren't playing your word game, here's ours." They are refusing to use the term assault weapon and instead refer to them as "banned firearms."
But the basics of the argument is that you can't ban a firearm that is in common use per Heller/McDonald. And the AR is one of the most prolific firearms there is. Also, they argue that "banned magazines" are also covered because they are common in so many other states that they are "in common use" and thus can't be banned.
 

pastera

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Nov 17, 2011
Messages
9,659
Likes
11,901
Location
Taunton
The issue isn't that they use banned instead of assault. It is their stated reason for doing so.
I believe a proper reasoning would be something like this.
The term assault weapon is a politicized term used to define a firearm as being particularly dangerous by the inclusion of more than a very small number of primarily cosmetic features not effecting the firearms rate of fire or achievable muzzle energy. The term assault weapon cannot be descriptive of a class of particularly dangerous firearms because its determining features do not describe items or features impacting the lethality or dangerousness of a particular firearms.
Therefore we will be using the very descriptive term banned weapons to describe the firearms at issue.
 

Mesatchornug

Instructor
NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
8,417
Likes
15,236
Location
People's Republik
The issue isn't that they use banned instead of assault. It is their stated reason for doing so.
I believe a proper reasoning would be something like this.
The term assault weapon is a politicized term used to define a firearm as being particularly dangerous by the inclusion of more than a very small number of primarily cosmetic features not effecting the firearms rate of fire or achievable muzzle energy. The term assault weapon cannot be descriptive of a class of particularly dangerous firearms because its determining features do not describe items or features impacting the lethality or dangerousness of a particular firearms.
Therefore we will be using the very descriptive term banned weapons to describe the firearms at issue.
Right. Or just say "so-called 'assault weapons'" everywhere, if you really just want to make political hay from it.
 

pastera

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Nov 17, 2011
Messages
9,659
Likes
11,901
Location
Taunton
Right. Or just say "so-called 'assault weapons'" everywhere, if you really just want to make political hay from it.
I actually disagree with that since that only addresses firearms banned under the term assault weapon.
We want to attack not on banning due to certain features but banning in general.
The issue is the restriction of any firearms in common use for any reason not just those that fall under the banner of assault weapon.

If we succeed in closing the "assault weapon" avenue they will come up with some other term that's different enough to escape the ruling. A clear ruling that firearms in general cannot be banned is what we really want.
 

Mesatchornug

Instructor
NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
8,417
Likes
15,236
Location
People's Republik
I actually disagree with that since that only addresses firearms banned under the term assault weapon.
We want to attack not on banning due to certain features but banning in general.
The issue is the restriction of any firearms in common use for any reason not just those that fall under the banner of assault weapon.

If we succeed in closing the "assault weapon" avenue they will come up with some other term that's different enough to escape the ruling. A clear ruling that firearms in general cannot be banned is what we really want.
I could have been clearer. I agree that the point is to do away with weapon bans. I like your phrasing as opposed to his. I was just saying we could skip the paragraph altogether, make the rest of the argument against the ban, and simply refer to them as so-called.

That said, I think your method makes a stronger argument against banning, while mine really exists to attack the assault weapon term.
 

Rockrivr1

NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Jun 22, 2005
Messages
18,109
Likes
13,762
Location
South Central Mass
I’ve been wondering when this would happen seeing the NY SC decision. It’s a prime time to hit hard on these bans. Though I’d rather see a more organized group do the lawsuit. Wonder what Comm2A was waiting for. I would have thought the suit would come from them.
 

andrewCZ

NES Member
Rating - 100%
148   0   0
Joined
Oct 2, 2011
Messages
20,597
Likes
21,703
Location
North Shore
I’ve been wondering when this would happen seeing the NY SC decision. It’s a prime time to hit hard on these bans. Though I’d rather see a more organized group do the lawsuit. Wonder what Comm2A was waiting for. I would have thought the suit would come from them.
Someone from Comm2a has already responded to this thread. See terraformers posts from last week
 
Top Bottom