NSSF filed vs AGO!

Hopefully discovery will reveal something helpful or interesting about the AG's internal process/thinking that (at least as I understand it) hasn't yet come out in the FOIA requests.
 
Here a link to the order.

It's actually much better than I thought it would be.

Interpreted in the light of the Attorney General’s public statements, the Notice is a conclusive statement evidencing her intent to shift the definitional regime under which arms sales are to be regulated in Massachusetts. In fulfillment of the second prong, it is clear that the Attorney General intends that there will be legal consequences for those that engage in transferring the weapons in question.
Click to expand...

Without a doubt, this is a setback for the AG, but it's far from over. It's a ruling on a single motion in which the judge is obligated to give deference to the non-moving party, the plaintiffs.
 
If the plaintiffs lose this will be devastating....however, she kind of shot herself in the foot with the "substantially similar" argument but exempting guns of a lower caliber. Because if those are ruled 'substantially similar' but are not included in her interpretation that blows her argument out of the water.

Even so, I don't see her losing especially after recent events.

Courts makes very fancy arguments ab out constitutionality but always side with the popular agenda. I applaud them for putting up the good fight. I just have no faith in our court system when it comes to guns and 2A. The mere fact that she is banning something should be a huge red flag signaling infringement. Nothing more should be needed to overturn her stupid interpretation.
 
I've been reading the motions of this case on the GOAL website. The more I read, the more convinced that the AG is going to have a really hard time proving her interpretations of not only the 94 Assault Weapons ban but the 2nd Amendment in general. In fact, were I a reasonable person, their argument would convince me to eliminate the so-called "Assault Weapons ban" all together. Take the time and read the entire case here...even if you just read the last plaintiff response, you'll be smarter for it!

Worman v. Baker - Commonwealth Second Amendment, Inc. (comm2a.org)

Until I moved to MA and got my LTC, I never understood how critical it was to be involved. Even if it just means joining GOAL, the NRA, Northeast Shooters or Comm2a.org (I vote for all of the above).
It takes money to bring in the great minds that I'm reading in these motions...
 
another example of those making, interpreting and enforcing laws don't bother to educate themselves regarding firearms and ammunition

"The Plaintiffs (somewhat disingenuously) claim that they felt that this included .223 caliber weapons even though .223 clearly exceeds .22 (inches)"
 
I know we've been burned too many times to be optimistic, but I appreciated that the ruling calls out many of the AG's "throw crap at the wall to see what sticks" approaches.

E.g. - editing together some statements to make the narrative more readable:

The notice IS a regulation (note in [brackets] and bolding is mine):
The Attorney General asserts that her Notice is not susceptible to a constitutional vagueness challenge because it is neither statue nor regulation, but rather, “an advisory that notifies the public of the Attorney General’s interpretation of a criminal statute….”
However, in the context of this case the Attorney General’s enforcement notice essentially does just that [regulating the public], by creating a climate in which the Plaintiffs now must refrain from commercial activity (that the Attorney General has acknowledged has previously been generally accepted) or risk prosecution.
the Notice and subsequent publications, and statements by the Attorney General make it clear that the Plaintiffs will suffer consequences for participating in commercial activity that was common practice under the status quo ante.
An agency’s interpretation of the law is reviewable if it has the effect of regulation, regardless of whether it is called one.
Interpreted in the light of the Attorney General’s public statements, the Notice is a conclusive statement evidencing her intent to shift the definitional regime under which arms sales are to be regulated in Massachusetts. In fulfillment of the second prong, it is clear that the Attorney General intends that there will be legal consequences for those that engage in transferring the weapons in question.


The notice has effectively changed the law:
The Plaintiffs had been able to sell these weapons, and the Attorney General’s public statements highlight that the weapons have been widely sold in the Commonwealth without sanction, suggesting that the law was previously (prior to the notices in dispute here) settled on this matter.

The court rejects the idea that the AG could prosecute even if the notice was withdrawn:
The Attorney General argues that any order requiring her to take down her Notice does not preclude her from prosecuting the Plaintiffs for selling “copies or duplicates” of the Enumerated Weapons in violation of the statute. The Court disagrees.

I would also note that the court called out some of the plaintiff's claims, although did not rule against them specifically:
The Plaintiffs (somewhat disingenuously) claim that they felt that this included .223 caliber weapons even though .223 clearly exceeds .22 (inches).

The Plaintiffs make a somewhat gratuitous argument that the Enforcement Notice unconstitutionally burdens the Second Amendment [by claiming that all semi-automatics could be banned because they use the same physics]
 
Edit, I was in the process of writing my comments and researching something else related to it when JJ4 already addressed a similar comment before mine.

On page 3, the court denial states:

"The Attorney General asserts that her Notice is not susceptible to a constitutional vagueness challenge because it is neither statue nor regulation, but rather, “an advisory" that notifies the public of the Attorney General’s interpretation of a criminal statute….” Dkt. #23 at 16."
Click to expand...

Okay, for you lawyers in the forum, her bogus edict states, "neither statue [sic] nor regulation" so how can she prosecute any dealer(s) that sell AR15s if it is only an "advisory" and not a violation of a statute or a regulation? How can she prosecute an advisory?

The answer is she can't prosecute retailers and she knows it, and will not do it knowing that she will lose!

An advisory is no different than asking drivers to stay off the road during a snowstorm, so plows can do their work.

It's all bogus BS!
 
Last edited:
42! said:
Remember it's not challenging a law, it's challenging her enforcement notice. When was the last time that was done?
Click to expand...

Exactly, this isn't about challenging a law, its about challenging an illegal action (not based in law) by a government official.

-Mike
 
42! said:
Remember it's not challenging a law, it's challenging her enforcement notice. When was the last time that was done?
Click to expand...

It's not an enforcement order! She referred to it as an advisory in her court documents that is neither a statute nor a regulation.
 
Glockster30 said:
It's not an enforcement order! She referred to it as an advisory in her court documents that is neither a statute nor a regulation.
Click to expand...
Well I was just going with what I thought it said on the order, but I was wrong, its a notice not an order.;
upload_2018-3-14_17-19-11.png
 
42! said:
Well I was just going with what I thought it said on the order, but I was wrong, its a notice not an order.;
View attachment 225902
Click to expand...
Sounds like a cow, looks like a cow... the words advisory and enforcement ________ should not go together.
Well, with any luck she'll corner herself with backwards ass logic and lots of inconsistencies. I have no hope in an overturn of the AWB, but the other parts still have hope.
 
I'm a bit unimpressed by the following (emphasis mine):
C. Fourteenth Amendment said:
The Plaintiffs (somewhat disingenuously) claim that they felt that this included .223 caliber weapons even though .223 clearly exceeds .22 (inches).
Click to expand...

Someone obviously doesn't understand how cartridge specifications work. The 22LR projectile is also greater than 0.22 inches in diameter. SAAMI says it's 0.2255" (+0 / - 0.0040"). Heck, 223 REM is only 0.2245" (+0 / -0.0030"). While there's an argument to be made about the common use of "22 cal," that's not what they're saying here. Yeah, I'm being pedantic - that's what discussion of the law is about.
 
Last edited:
If she did what she did without adding her tests she would have been better off.
 
42! said:
Well I was just going with what I thought it said on the order, but I was wrong, its a notice not an order.;
View attachment 225902
Click to expand...

I really wasn't going after what you stated about an enforcement order. I'm just pissed because she referred to it as an advisory. The definition for advisory is:

adjective
  1. 1.
    having or consisting in the power to make recommendations but not to take action enforcing them. (bold font mine).
    "an independent advisory committee"
    synonyms: consultative, advising
    "she agreed to serve in an advisory role"

    • noun
  1. 1.
    an official announcement, typically a warning about bad weather conditions.
    "a frost advisory"
Click to expand...

Therefore, her "enforcement order" is just plain BS!
 
Massachusetts
The constitution stops here.
I just hope that this blows up and brings down a bunch of stuff with it.
Won't she be the popular kid if it ends up screwing up a lot of stuff in other constitution hating states as well.

 
This is great , but may all be in vain.
I’m sure she is writing new law for the legislature as we speak so that her edict is written in stone.
Oh and it will pass with overwhelming majority.
 

Similar threads

post trump, covid vax family relations: conservatives vs liberals
3 4 5
Replies
130
Views
3K
67ray
67ray
Cheap vs Expensive Red Dots
Replies
8
Views
486
johngalt2
J
Holosun 510 vs Holosun AMES
Replies
6
Views
227
PappyM3
PappyM3
What the Sheriffs were told three days ago by the FBI.
2
Replies
51
Views
3K
ridleyman
R
For those who question the strength of M2A1 vs M2A2 ammo cans, here's an interesting article on the subject.
Replies
12
Views
388
Uzi2
U
Back
Top Bottom