Mass. AG Files Brief in Case Challenging RI Gun Control Law

The brief argues that Rhode Island’s large-capacity magazine law is a constitutionally permissible restriction, as the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not prevent states from enacting common-sense gun regulations and because Rhode Island’s law is consistent with a historical legal tradition of regulating and imposing restrictions on new and distinctively dangerous forms of weaponry.

The the Attorneys General of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawai‘i, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin joined with Campbell in the brief.

Surprised to see PA and VT in that list...

oh, and -
 

Attachments

  • doublefu.gif
    doublefu.gif
    4.6 MB · Views: 22
Lokdog said:
1st circuit is a suck-ass anti court anyways. We all just need this case, or 1 like it, to make it to SCOTUS so it can be dealt with
Click to expand...
It is, but the anti's are looking at the possibility of SCOTUS striking down magazine capacity bans nationwide. If the 1st upholds what is the most egregious magazine law in the country with RI it will be an easy slapdown at SCOTUS compared to other states that have a grandfather clause.

I still expect SCOTUS to strike down magazine laws, but RI is so over the top that the anti's on the 1st Circuit would be smart to strike it down and limit the damage in their mind to a few states in New England instead of the entire country.

The stupidity of the RI Democrat party (really Rhode Island as a whole) is a gift that keeps on giving. There's a reason I call it Retard Island.
 
T-Unit said:
It is, but the anti's are looking at the possibility of SCOTUS striking down magazine capacity bans nationwide. If the 1st upholds what is the most egregious magazine law in the country with RI it will be an easy slapdown at SCOTUS compared to other states that have a grandfather clause.

I still expect SCOTUS to strike down magazine laws, but RI is so over the top that the anti's on the 1st Circuit would be smart to strike it down and limit the damage in their mind to a few states in New England instead of the entire country.

The stupidity of the RI Democrat party (really Rhode Island as a whole) is a gift that keeps on giving. There's a reason I call it Retard Island.
Click to expand...
I don’t use the “R” word for reasons very personal to me, but don’t care if others use it. But Retard Island is f***ing priceless!!!
[rofl] [rofl] [rofl][rofl]
 
T-Unit said:
The stupidity of the RI Democrat party (really Rhode Island as a whole) is a gift that keeps on giving. There's a reason I call it Retard Island.
Click to expand...
Yes, I want to build a wall on the border.

I don’t think we are long for MA anyways..
 
allen-1 said:
The brief argues that Rhode Island’s large-capacity magazine law is a constitutionally permissible restriction, as the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not prevent states from enacting common-sense gun regulations and because Rhode Island’s law is consistent with a historical legal tradition of regulating and imposing restrictions on new and distinctively dangerous forms of weaponry.

The the Attorneys General of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawai‘i, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin joined with Campbell in the brief.

Surprised to see PA and VT in that list...

oh, and -
Click to expand...
Laughable. No it's not, they know it and they are throwing shit at the wall.
 
Last edited:
Not surprised at VT joining at all. VT is a lost cause already.

Didn't the 9th in Cali (some of them) strike down their ban, and En Banque upheld it, but then it was challenged again? If so, I would think SCOTUS will have to get involved.

Oh, BTW: Come and Take Them, B*tches.
 
"Dangerous forms of weaponry"? These brain-dead political puppets for real? The term covers everything from the Roman Gladius to the Greek Kopis. Projectile weapons? English longbow and French (Gaul) crossbow. Firearms? Yes, flintlock, matchlocks, wheel locks and caplock, ad nauseum. Right back to the beginnings of history. Those who do not learn from history are condemned to relive it.
 
T-Unit said:
This might have held some weight if there were any regulations on say the Gatling gun or the lever action during the late 1800s. There were no such regulations then, so there is no historical tradition.
Click to expand...
The history and tradition needs to be from 1791 when the bill of rights was ratified.

Still though, people legally owned cannons and ships of war back then. Is RI saying those weren’t exceptionally dangerous?
 
PappyM3 said:
The history and tradition needs to be from 1791 when the bill of rights was ratified.

Still though, people legally owned cannons and ships of war back then. Is RI saying those weren’t exceptionally dangerous?
Click to expand...
My understanding was that there's space for the 1840s, when the 14th was ratified as well. At that time, private citizens were buying the levers and Gatlings to which he refers. As I understand it, levers were more popular among the populace than with the military, who wanted to limit the rate of fire of their average soldier.
 
Native Americans were using the lever actions while the cavalry was using trapdoor Springfields. If you asked Gen. Custer if the lever action was an assault weapon he'd probably yes.

The Henry was "the damn Yankee rifle you load on Sunday and shoot all week."

There were no arguements or even bills brought to restrict ownership of those rifles and that was at a time that 3 rds a minute was the standard. Same could be said about revolvers, Colt made hundreds of thousands of revolvers in the 1850s, no regulation on possession, maybe on carrying, but the focus on this RI law is possession and there's nothing in US history or tradition in the 18th or 19th Century to suggest that new weapons were considered dangerous and thus restricted.
 
TOM1960 said:
"Dangerous forms of weaponry"? These brain-dead political puppets for real? The term covers everything from the Roman Gladius to the Greek Kopis. Projectile weapons? English longbow and French (Gaul) crossbow. Firearms? Yes, flintlock, matchlocks, wheel locks and caplock, ad nauseum. Right back to the beginnings of history. Those who do not learn from history are condemned to relive it.
Click to expand...
What weapons aren't dangerous?
 
Whenever RI gun control comes up, I must remind everyone that more people have died on the Providence Place escalator (2) than by “assault weapons” in Rhode Island.
 
As a judge, the personal opinion of another AG form another state is sort of useless to me when deciding if a case is valid or not. I never understand these briefs. They aren't providing additional insight at all. They are political in nature.

Damn we need a few quick good rulings in this area. It's getting stupid.
 
TOM1960 said:
"Dangerous forms of weaponry"? These brain-dead political puppets for real? The term covers everything from the Roman Gladius to the Greek Kopis. Projectile weapons? English longbow and French (Gaul) crossbow. Firearms? Yes, flintlock, matchlocks, wheel locks and caplock, ad nauseum. Right back to the beginnings of history. Those who do not learn from history are condemned to relive it.
Click to expand...
Hell, I have a Bec de Corbin that one can argue changed warfare in its day.
 

Similar threads

Gun Control Debate Live Stream
Replies
18
Views
546
Bigfudge16
Bigfudge16
Washington Gun Law Youtuber Puts Proposed New Mass Gun Law in the Spotlight!
Replies
12
Views
839
inerlogic
inerlogic
MA Law: carrying a gun where animals may be present
2
Replies
56
Views
2K
MisterHappy
MisterHappy
District Judge Grants Summary Judgment Against California’s One-Gun-a-Month Law
Replies
0
Views
154
Reptile
Reptile
NEW- Gun Grab Bill Six-member conference committee to decide Legislature's gun control proposal
Replies
24
Views
1K
StevieP
StevieP
Back
Top Bottom