NSSF filed vs AGO!

The infuriating thing about this is that there's no injunction against her, keeping things status quo the way they WERE. I do not understand how she gets to re-write law and it stays that way (abrogating our rights) as it is fought through the courts....for years.

Because she hasn't actually changed the law- what she did is basically threaten to prosecute someone using her "new interpretation". I think in order to even get an injunction you'd have to be in some kind of position where she actually took real legal action going beyond a mere threat. Sending out a notice saying "I'm going to be a douchebag" apparently isn't enough to get an injunction against someone.

-Mike
 
The infuriating thing about this is that there's no injunction against her, keeping things status quo the way they WERE. I do not understand how she gets to re-write law and it stays that way (abrogating our rights) as it is fought through the courts....for years.
*******
Because she's a moonbat in Ma. going against the evil gun industry.

- - - Updated - - -

Because she hasn't actually changed the law- what she did is basically threaten to prosecute someone using her "new interpretation". I think in order to even get an injunction you'd have to be in some kind of position where she actually took real legal action going beyond a mere threat. Sending out a notice saying "I'm going to be a douchebag" apparently isn't enough to get an injunction against someone.

-Mike
*******
And since all the dealers caved to her illegal demands there's no test cases. No one wants to be the crash test dummy.
 
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.

This should have been given a bump two months ago when NSSf et. al. filed their response the the AG's supplemental brief.

05/10/2017 - Plaintiff's Response to Defendants Supplemental Brief

At this point, it looks like the court has the next move.
 
How do I join or donate to NSSF? Is it just for industry or can individuals without a firearm business join?

Thanks.
 
|
Link didn't come out right but it's there.
It's an Associate membership.
 
Nicely written reply. While I can believe that the AG would play the "does not have standing because the court can't issue relief" game, it's more ironic which cases they used to defend their position.

I am surprised she waited so long to play that card. I guess she expected it to just go away.
 
This is great news, my next purchase will come from one of these shops.
IIRC one of these shops (Pulman Arms) no longer sells firearms but still does gunsmithing. Another shop, Grrr Gear in Orange MA is a small "Mom & Pop" operation. Unfortunately the "Pop" passed away while traveling to the SHOT Show in Vegas. "Mom" has vowed to stay the course and it's business as usual.

Just sayin' that we gotta support these shops; they put it all on the line in this lawsuit. Consider the impact if ALL Mass gun shops had the balls to join in the lawsuit?
 
Consider the impact if ALL Mass gun shops had the balls to join in the lawsuit?
Would not make a bit of difference, as the legal arguments would be the same and the suit is already fully funded.

I have concerns about the suit, because it is not "laser focused" on the mis-interpretation/rewriting of the law issue. I believe in the 2A, but also believe throwing in a 2A claim was strategically unwise as the federal district courts have been universally hostile to claims the 2A covers EBRs. Once you throw in multiple claims, the court can use any of them as a hook on which to hang an adverse finding, and then either ignore or gloss over the others.

I predict the court will suddenly find time for this on the calendar since the public sentiment is ripe for a "desired public policy" decision rather than a law driven one.
 
IIRC one of these shops (Pulman Arms) no longer sells firearms but still does gunsmithing.

@pullmanarms is no longer a stocking dealer, but I believe they have said they will order in anything you can come to an agreement on. And they of course do transfers, along with gunsmithing.


Another shop, Grrr Gear in Orange MA is a small "Mom & Pop" operation. Unfortunately the "Pop" passed away while traveling to the SHOT Show in Vegas. "Mom" has vowed to stay the course and it's business as usual.

So sorry to hear that, such nice folks.
 
I wished the FFLs in this state did what another vendor did when Maura lobbed threats at them; we aren't breaking the law, talk to our lawyer and go f*** yourself.

Too bad there is no worker's union for MA FFLs...that would have come in handy in keeping Maura at bay while still selling ARs.
 
I wished the FFLs in this state did what another vendor did when Maura lobbed threats at them; we aren't breaking the law, talk to our lawyer and go f*** yourself.

Too bad there is no worker's union for MA FFLs...that would have come in handy in keeping Maura at bay while still selling ARs.
Too bad most FFLs are too god damned self serving to look past profits and tell the state to f*** off... rhymes with Poor Reasons
 
Worman is a different case from NSSF v Healey. In the latter case, I believe that there are motions pending before the court.

Should we be pleased that Worman, GOAL, Et al. v. Baker is apparently going to make it to trail before NSSF v. Healey?
Particularly given what @Rob Boudrie characterized as a lack of “focus” on the Healey action by the NSSF suit, and what I then assume is the possibility of setting unfavorable precedent were NFFS to go off the rails.
 
Don't be surprised if Healey stalls to try and get the cases in a favourable timeline before the courts.
 
I'll net this out. Both AWB related cases have motions pending before the court. The May 7th trial date for Worman was supplanted by last month's motions hearing.

For Pullman Arms v. Healy (NSSF v. AGO), a hearing was held April 7, 2018 on the AG's motion to dismiss. Both parties filed supplemental, post-argument briefs and responses. A decision on the AG's MTD is pending and could be handed down anytime. I attended this hearing and the judge seemed surprisingly receptive Pullman's arguments. But that doesn't mean anything..... If the judge denies the AG's MTD, the case moves forward.

For Woman v. Baker, oral arguments were held February 9th, 2018 on cross motions for summary judgement. These motions are now under advisement and it could be many months before a decision is issued.
 
Back
Top Bottom