NSSF filed vs AGO!

[rwl1955]

This is an extension of what the VPC advocated in 1988 (http://www.vpc.org/studies/awacont.htm) that has frankly been wildly successful for gun prohibitionists--sow fear and discord by promoting misunderstanding of what semi-automatic carbines actually are and how they work.

********
Of course, the average voter doesn't know the difference between an AR or AK or what semi-auto means.

 

[42!]

********
Of course, the average voter doesn't know the difference between an AR or AK or what semi-auto means.

The CoP in Framingham doesn't know the difference why should the average voter. Yup the CoP told me twice that the officers carried "automatics" in their cruisers. A fellow NES member who supplied the rifles corrected me.

 

[sieveboy]

This is an extension of what the VPC advocated in 1988 (http://www.vpc.org/studies/awacont.htm) that has frankly been wildly successful for gun prohibitionists--sow fear and discord by promoting misunderstanding of what semi-automatic carbines actually are and how they work.

Yep. That's exactly what Feinstein did to Gorsuch this week. Ask him about M-16s when she knows damn well these are rare as hen's teeth and what she's really interested in is banning is AR-15s.

 

[amm5061]

The CoP in Framingham doesn't know the difference why should the average voter. Yup the CoP told me twice that the officers carried "automatics" in their cruisers. A fellow NES member who supplied the rifles corrected me.

In fairness, the old SWAT team did carry select fire machine guns. They stopped after that one cop blew the back of some poor innocent schmuck's head off when he "slipped" during a no-knock raid. But I get your point here.

 

[42!]

In fairness, the old SWAT team did carry select fire machine guns. They stopped after that one cop blew the back of some poor innocent schmuck's head off when he "slipped" during a no-knock raid. But I get your point here.

Chief Ferguson made this statement late 2016 not long before he left on medical leave. I understand he's back now. This was well after the SWAT was disbanded and the automatics disposed of.

 

[E.Stoner]

********
Of course, the average voter doesn't know the difference between an AR or AK or what semi-auto means.

This is the major issue with having any sort of debate with anti's, or in fact any "features-based" conversation. Most people, including legislators, have no idea about the features and functions of any firearm. Ask them what an "assault-weapon" is any they think of Rambo with duel M-60's going all first blood. Most people think that AR-15's are machine guns. Most people think that "mass-shootings" have all been committed with "machine guns".
Most people don't know that machine guns have been banned since the 80's and neither machine guns or "assault weapons" are basically never use in crimes.
Hell, most people don't even know what the definition of "mass-shooting" is.
Most anti's are lazy, frightened, and uninformed. In the realm of public discourse and legislation, no matter what the strength of logic or rationality of the argument of the it always boils down to "because guns".
That's why the only way we are going to make progress is for a rational, fact based, constitutionalist judiciary to step in an smack down all of this bogus with "because constitution". End of conversation, end of story, the end, sweet dreams....

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Yesterday the Attorney Genederal filed her reply to the plaintiff's opposition to here MTD.

Just to recap.

01/10/17 - AG's Motion to Dismiss
01/24/17 - Plaintiffs' Opposition to AG's MTD
02/21/17 - AG's Reply to plaintiff's opposition to AG's MTD.

Updates to the case are in order. A hearing on the AG's MTD was held on April 7th. There will be a transcript available eventually, which will be interesting. Things got off to a little bit of a rocky start. Rather than giving the AG the opportunity to speak first in support of their MTD, which is the normally procedure, the judge went right to plaintiffs asking them how they can connect their vagueness claim to something that isn't either a law or regulation. In the end, he also threw them a lifeline and both parties were allowed to file supplemental briefs. For now we wait to see if the judge grant's the AG's motion to dismiss. If the judge denies the AG's MTD, we move on to discovery and probably eventually a trial. The judge seemed much more open-minded than I'd expected.

02/27/2017 - Notice of Supplemental Authorities in support of AG's MTD.
03/09/2017 - Defendant's reply to Plaintiff's Response to the AG's MTD.
04/18/2017 - AG's Supplemental Memorandum in support of their MTD.
04/18/2017 - Plaintiff's Supplemental Brief in support of their opposition to the AG's MTD.

 

[Horrible]

Updates to the case are in order. A hearing on the AG's MTD was held on April 7th. There will be a transcript available eventually, which will be interesting. Things got off to a little bit of a rocky start. Rather than giving the AG the opportunity to speak first in support of their MTD, which is the normally procedure, the judge went right to plaintiffs asking them how they can connect their vagueness claim to something that isn't either a law or regulation. In the end, he also threw them a lifeline and both parties were allowed to file supplemental briefs. For now we wait to see if the judge grant's the AG's motion to dismiss. If the judge denies the AG's MTD, we move on to discovery and probably eventually a trial. The judge seemed much more open-minded than I'd expected.

02/27/2017 - Notice of Supplemental Authorities in support of AG's MTD.
03/09/2017 - Defendant's reply to Plaintiff's Response to the AG's MTD.
04/18/2017 - AG's Supplemental Memorandum in support of their MTD.
04/18/2017 - Plaintiff's Supplemental Brief in support of their opposition to the AG's MTD.

Wow. Interesting. Thanks for the update!

 

[Chevy 2 65]

Updates to the case are in order. A hearing on the AG's MTD was held on April 7th. There will be a transcript available eventually, which will be interesting. Things got off to a little bit of a rocky start. Rather than giving the AG the opportunity to speak first in support of their MTD, which is the normally procedure, the judge went right to plaintiffs asking them how they can connect their vagueness claim to something that isn't either a law or regulation. In the end, he also threw them a lifeline and both parties were allowed to file supplemental briefs. For now we wait to see if the judge grant's the AG's motion to dismiss. If the judge denies the AG's MTD, we move on to discovery and probably eventually a trial. The judge seemed much more open-minded than I'd expected.

02/27/2017 - Notice of Supplemental Authorities in support of AG's MTD.
03/09/2017 - Defendant's reply to Plaintiff's Response to the AG's MTD.
04/18/2017 - AG's Supplemental Memorandum in support of their MTD.
04/18/2017 - Plaintiff's Supplemental Brief in support of their opposition to the AG's MTD.

That should have been directed to the dictator

 

[DarthRevan]

I always get a little excited when this thread gets bumped. Thanks for the update.

 

[pastera]

AG's supplement is based on case law that is only vaguely and marginally related to the argument - At what time does the court give her the smack down for insulting their intelligence?

 

[W.E.C]

Luv it.

using her rant to the boston globe as a record of a regulation.

thanks you grandstanding lip flapper.

At least she can prove she has one set lips.

 

[crazymjb]

Ah, looking forward to watching this progress.

Mike

 

[Squire]

AG's supplement is based on case law that is only vaguely and marginally related to the argument - At what time does the court give her the smack down for insulting their intelligence?

Remember, she wasn't supposed to be here by now. Her 7/20 actions were effectively "gang initiation" to get into the Clinton cabinet. **** all of them, we got Gorsuch.

 

[Friday]

Nothing is guaranteed, but it is good to see some progress. hope it goes well.

 

[Noreaster]

There will be a transcript available eventually, which will be interesting

Where does one obtain these?

 

[Mike S]

Updates to the case are in order. A hearing on the AG's MTD was held on April 7th. There will be a transcript available eventually, which will be interesting. Things got off to a little bit of a rocky start. Rather than giving the AG the opportunity to speak first in support of their MTD, which is the normally procedure, the judge went right to plaintiffs asking them how they can connect their vagueness claim to something that isn't either a law or regulation.

I hope the lawyers replied to this with "exactly, yet she's threatening a ten year felony charge for failure to follow"

 

[crazymjb]

Having just skimmed the docs posted last night, it seems the lawyers were pretty on point with responding to the Judge.

Mike

 

[mikeboston]

http://newbostonpost.com/2017/04/25/ag-healey-answers-some-questions-not-others-on-gun-directive/

“We need federal standards,” Healey said, referring to the discrepancies between federal and state firearms regulations. “I was approached by people who were protesting my interpretation of the assault weapons law, and I said to them, ‘let’s have a conversation — where are you on a national standard?’

I thought this was already interpreted on the federal and state level.

 

[amm5061]

http://newbostonpost.com/2017/04/25/ag-healey-answers-some-questions-not-others-on-gun-directive/

“We need federal standards,” Healey said, referring to the discrepancies between federal and state firearms regulations. “I was approached by people who were protesting my interpretation of the assault weapons law, and I said to them, ‘let’s have a conversation — where are you on a national standard?’

I thought this was already interpreted on the federal and state level.

It was decided on both levels years ago. Her "conversation" was totally one-sided, or maybe she's just schizophrenic and the voices are all having many conversations at once.

 

[CAR]

We have a Federal standard: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

http://newbostonpost.com/2017/04/25/ag-healey-answers-some-questions-not-others-on-gun-directive/

“We need federal standards,” Healey said, referring to the discrepancies between federal and state firearms regulations. “I was approached by people who were protesting my interpretation of the assault weapons law, and I said to them, ‘let’s have a conversation — where are you on a national standard?’

I thought this was already interpreted on the federal and state level.

 

[92G]

http://newbostonpost.com/2017/04/25/ag-healey-answers-some-questions-not-others-on-gun-directive/

“We need federal standards,” Healey said, referring to the discrepancies between federal and state firearms regulations. “I was approached by people who were protesting my interpretation of the assault weapons law, and I said to them, ‘let’s have a conversation — where are you on a national standard?’

I thought this was already interpreted on the federal and state level.

again, lady protected by 24-7 heavily armed police details with so called "assault weapons" and "high capacity magazines" telling the people who pay her salary that they don't need them and shouldn't worry about it.

 

[rwl1955]

another small donation inbound

 

[Mass-diver]

http://newbostonpost.com/2017/04/25/ag-healey-answers-some-questions-not-others-on-gun-directive/

“We need federal standards,” Healey said, referring to the discrepancies between federal and state firearms regulations. “I was approached by people who were protesting my interpretation of the assault weapons law, and I said to them, ‘let’s have a conversation — where are you on a national standard?’

I thought this was already interpreted on the federal and state level.

The whole copy-cat issues was addressed by BATF (the "experts" on this subject) after the '94 ban. The MA is identifical to the federal law.

Is this going to come up at some point? Copy-cats were legal under federal law (as post-ban rifles) until the sunset of the ban - she's pretending like it's a new issue.

 

[soam]

The whole copy-cat issues was addressed by BATF (the "experts" on this subject) after the '94 ban. The MA is identifical to the federal law.

Is this going to come up at some point? Copy-cats were legal under federal law (as post-ban rifles) until the sunset of the ban - she's pretending like it's a new issue.

She's not even talking about copy or duplicates anymore. She's talking about re-instituting the AWB at the Federal level, which is obviously a non-starter but is a great soundbite for her supporters.

 

[Mass-diver]

She's not even talking about copy or duplicates anymore. She's talking about re-instituting the AWB at the Federal level, which is obviously a non-starter but is a great soundbite for her supporters.

Which also makes no sense - there is no federal AWB, the federal standard is that these guns are all legal. There's nothing to interpret as no law exists. So called AWs are legally federally and banned in a few far left states.

 

[soam]

Which also makes no sense - there is no federal AWB, the federal standard is that these guns are all legal. There's nothing to interpret as no law exists. So called AWs are legally federally and banned in a few far left states.

She's hinting at the Federal legislature passing a new AWB, which as I said is a non-starter.

 

[Mass-diver]

She's hinting at the Federal legislature passing a new AWB, which as I said is a non-starter.

Obviously there is zero chance of this happening, however, I think she is trying to muddy the waters to make it seem like there is a ton of gray area at all levels when it comes to AW enforcement. In this setting, her interpretation seems as reasonable as any.

 

[drgrant]

Which also makes no sense - there is no federal AWB, the federal standard is that these guns are all legal. There's nothing to interpret as no law exists. So called AWs are legally federally and banned in a few far left states.

None of this has ever made any "sense" not in the weirdest definition of the word. It's quite obvious everything that comes out of her mouth is part of the same political stunt. She can just blather pretty much anything and it won't be questioned, because most people don't have a clue about gun laws anyways.

-Mike

 

[Horrible]

She's not even talking about copy or duplicates anymore. She's talking about re-instituting the AWB at the Federal level, which is obviously a non-starter but is a great soundbite for her supporters.

Which has exactly nothing to do with this case or her tyrannical dictate on 7/20/16