NSSF filed vs AGO!

Exactly right.

Next year I am going to make a copy of my tax return and then change it to no income made and leave the amount of tax I paid. It is a legal copy and that way I will get back all my tax money.

It is genius.
b0a7e9efbfd7a273c560dcb16e33c0bd.gif
 
There were a couple instances in this thread where people were saying she made up the "copies and duplicates" language. I believe SPT is just pointing out that the language is in the law. She didn't make that part up. She is just making up a new definition for it. She knows full well what the language meant. She is counting on the general public's ignorance of what it has meant for that past 18+yrs.
Thank You. I thought I made that point perfectly clear. I also cannot believe that I'm getting flamed and having negative reputation comments left on me by people who are spending more time screaming about Hitlery and "Dick"tators than actually concentrating on the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of her arguments and possible counterpoints.
 
Thank You. I thought I made that point perfectly clear. I also cannot believe that I'm getting flamed and having negative reputation comments left on me by people who are spending more time screaming about Hitlery and "Dick"tators than actually concentrating on the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of her arguments and possible counterpoints.

Are you new here....[wink]
 
This case was assigned to District Judge Timothy S Hillman

http://www.mad.uscourts.gov/worcester/hillman.htm

Is this good / bad or does it not matter?

My father worked closely with Timmy Hillman, and has incredible respect for him as a judge. He's fair and not an activist by any means.
Hillman is the ONLY judge in the central division. In my personal opinion, it was a mistake to file in the central division. In Morin, Hillman was a little too willing to accept and rule on the Commonwealth's version of the case we brought, rather than on the case that was actually before the court. That said, he was also very aware that his was not going to be the last word.
 
What has bothered me from the beginning is arguing her interpretation instead of arguing her claimed authority under MA Ch 93A Sec 2.

It seems to me that her authority under this portion of the law as it relates to firearms is very specific and restricted. From what I read it seems that it's intent and that of the underlying Fed 15 USC 45(1)(a) is to protect consumers against unethical methods of business. Nowhere does it say the AG can reclassify, create additional tests, reinterpret, or otherwise deny sales of certain commonly sold firearms and parts under this authority.

I would love to hear a legal opinion on this. In private is fine if doing so publicly is unwise.


Chapter 93A Section 2


Section 2. (a) Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.

(b) It is the intent of the legislature that in construing paragraph (a) of this section in actions brought under sections four, nine and eleven, the courts will be guided by the interpretations given by the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Courts to section 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1)), as from time to time amended.

(c) The attorney general may make rules and regulations interpreting the provisions of subsection 2(a) of this chapter. Such rules and regulations shall not be inconsistent with the rules, regulations and decisions of the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Courts interpreting the provisions of 15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1) (The Federal Trade Commission Act), as from time to time amended.
I think she's tipped her hand recently about how firearms are a consumer product safety issue. She'll be turning down that road next
 
Thank You. I thought I made that point perfectly clear. I also cannot believe that I'm getting flamed and having negative reputation comments left on me by people who are spending more time screaming about Hitlery and "Dick"tators than actually concentrating on the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of her arguments and possible counterpoints.


+1 for the dick traitors comment. That's pretty funny...if it wasn't your life I mean.
 
Hillman is the ONLY judge in the central division. In my personal opinion, it was a mistake to file in the central division. In Morin, Hillman was a little too willing to accept and rule on the Commonwealth's version of the case we brought, rather than on the case that was actually before the court. That said, he was also very aware that his was not going to be the last word.

True and true. With that said, he's a sportsman (hunter, fisherman) and despite being an Obama appointee, not a liberal/activist judge. I was talking with my old man about this earlier - they worked together for years - and he's pretty confident after reading the filing.
 
True and true. With that said, he's a sportsman (hunter, fisherman) and despite being an Obama appointee, not a liberal/activist judge. I was talking with my old man about this earlier - they worked together for years - and he's pretty confident after reading the filing.

Your Dad is confident about what, exactly?
 
True and true. With that said, he's a sportsman (hunter, fisherman) and despite being an Obama appointee, not a liberal/activist judge. I was talking with my old man about this earlier - they worked together for years - and he's pretty confident after reading the filing.

There have been some very good 2A rulings by Obama and Clinton appointees. And at the same time we've gotten some very bad results from Republican appointed judges and justices (John Paul Steven & David Souter, just to name a few). The only thing you can do is go into court with the best possible case you have and hope that you're persuasive.
 
Your Dad is confident about what, exactly?

Confident about Judge Hillman coming to the correct conclusion, based on the law as it reads and the scope of the attorney generals ability to interpret and uphold it. That on both a state and federal level, the test suggested in her enforcement was put forth and rejected, and that there is a different specific test and enumerated list written into the law seem to be against her. I don't know - I'm a lay person, my father and Judge Hillman went to law school; I didn't.
 
Last edited:
Confident about Judge Hillman coming to the correct conclusion, based on the law as it reads and the scope of the attorney generals ability to interpret and uphold it. That on both a state and federal level, the test suggested in her enforcement was put forth and rejected, and that there is a different specific test and enumerated list written into the law seem to be against her. I don't know - I'm a lay person, my father and Judge Hillman went to law school; I didn't.
*****
Hope your Father is right.
 
It is a sad commentary on the state of affairs that the political leaning of the judges, rather than the merits of a case, is the big worry point.
 
It is a sad commentary on the state of affairs that the political leaning of the judges, rather than the merits of a case, is the big worry point.

I've been saying this for years.
 
It is a sad commentary on the state of affairs that the political leaning of the judges, rather than the merits of a case, is the big worry point.

I had my first dose of this in the late 1970s in small claims court (suing 2 house painters who didn't paint). The judge even told me that he was NOT going to rule based on law, said in an open courtroom. I was too intimidated by the process to do anything more than stand there perplexed. I later learned that he had quite the reputation (bad) in that court, always easy on teenagers (they could do no wrong), etc.

Not much has changed in MA courts, sadly. And with the liberal indoctrination in colleges it's progressed throughout the legal court system to the highest levels.
 
I had my first dose of this in the late 1970s in small claims court (suing 2 house painters who didn't paint). The judge even told me that he was NOT going to rule based on law, said in an open courtroom. I was too intimidated by the process to do anything more than stand there perplexed. I later learned that he had quite the reputation (bad) in that court, always easy on teenagers (they could do no wrong), etc.

Not much has changed in MA courts, sadly. And with the liberal indoctrination in colleges it's progressed throughout the legal court system to the highest levels.

Judge Judy does this all the time.
 
I had my first dose of this in the late 1970s in small claims court (suing 2 house painters who didn't paint). The judge even told me that he was NOT going to rule based on law, said in an open courtroom. I was too intimidated by the process to do anything more than stand there perplexed. I later learned that he had quite the reputation (bad) in that court, always easy on teenagers (they could do no wrong), etc.

Not much has changed in MA courts, sadly. And with the liberal indoctrination in colleges it's progressed throughout the legal court system to the highest levels.

Sounds like a Judge that used to be in Haverhill district court.
To a T
 
Sounds like a Judge that used to be in Haverhill district court.
To a T

Could have been, the did bounce him out of the court I sued in and put him in another court. Unsure what happened to him before or after my dealings with him, but I left that courthouse angrier at the judge than the 2 guys I had sued.
 
The first sentence in the "Introduction" and I'm already face palming.

Seeking to reduce deaths and injuries caused by military-style semiautomatic weapons, the Massachusetts Legislature in 1998 enacted a ban on the sale and possession of assault weapons in the Commonwealth.

...cuz blood has been running in the streets for the last two decades.
 
What expert in their right mind ever testified that the same round fired from an AR platform somehow caused more grievous injuries than from... any other platform?
 
Back
Top Bottom