New lawsuit filed today in US district court against the Massachusetts AWB. National Association for Gun Rights v. Healey.
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.
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 don't know the back story with NAGR (saw some negative stuff), but the complaint seemed to hit the key points. What was the strategic value in waiting? It seems like a challenge is long past due.I do wish people would consider the consequences of loss in these cases. NAGR, ffs
here is one from FPC“NAGR”? Where’s Comm2A, FPC, GOAL, etc?
I've seen it before but I don't remember exactly whereNice quote on Staples. Somehow I missed that case.
How about a better written brief?I don't know the back story with NAGR (saw some negative stuff), but the complaint seemed to hit the key points. What was the strategic value in waiting? It seems like a challenge is long past due.
Well it’s been two and a half months and you’ll notice the usual suspects (Comm2A, etc) haven’t filed yet. I assume they have a good reason to wait. For example, we don’t yet have persuasive but non binding precedent in the CA and MD cases that SCOTUS remanded after Bruen. The First Circuit and this district court will do anything to rule against gun rights so we need all the ammunition we can possibly get before filing.I don't know the back story with NAGR (saw some negative stuff), but the complaint seemed to hit the key points. What was the strategic value in waiting? It seems like a challenge is long past due.
It is almost "the elephant in the room". It discusses the AR15 as being the civilian version of the M16. As a semi-automatic rifle, it is in common use for legitimate legal purposes. The question in the case is whether the possessor knew that this particular AR15 was modified with M16 parts and the selector stop filed off when the possessor never attempted to fire the AR as an automatic rifle.I've seen it before but I don't remember exactly where
Okay - I remember the case but don't remember which case I saw that referred to Staples (or the outcome of that case)It is almost "the elephant in the room". It discusses the AR15 as being the civilian version of the M16. As a semi-automatic rifle, it is in common use for legitimate legal purposes. The question in the case is whether the possessor knew that this particular AR15 was modified with M16 parts and the selector stop filed off when the possessor never attempted to fire the AR as an automatic rifle.
Yes it does - each avenue of attack is closed in a loss. If a winning pathway is poorly argued then that's it, no second bite at that apple.Here come all the haters, you guys don’t understand. We need to be like the left and be just absolutely relentless. File lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit. It’s a grind. A lost case isn’t going to hurt us unless it loses at the SCOTUS.
You need as many cases as possible to get as far up the chain as possible.
I disagree. When it comes to 2A lawsuits, they need to be strategic and well thought out. Bad cases can result in bad precedents. Heller, MacDonald, and Bruen didn’t succeed by throwing cases at the wall and hoping one would stick. They were well planned, well reasoned, and well written.Here come all the haters, you guys don’t understand. We need to be like the left and be just absolutely relentless. File lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit. It’s a grind. A lost case isn’t going to hurt us unless it loses at the SCOTUS.
You need as many cases as possible to get as far up the chain as possible.
No. Paragraph 13 is a tantrum.So is paragraph 13 the main argument? That "assault weapon" isn't a real term so therefore all laws are null and void?
Was this a poorly argued attack and isn't the pathway already closed for all intents and purposes with the status quo?Yes it does - each avenue of attack is closed in a loss. If a winning pathway is poorly argued then that's it, no second bite at that apple.
The resident plaintiff gives them standing.View attachment 659238
That's a lot to watch over all at once. No wonder the suit looks cookie cutter.
In MA, I am guessing it gets dismissed in district for lack of standing.