• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

NSSF filed vs AGO!

Pullman bent over backwards for me and they are doing it again for all of us. Please support them, looks like Ill be shopping there again soon!

- - - Updated - - -

its a big deal, so a lot of people on reddit/us arf.com etc are all clicking away.
 
This makes me extremely happy. Waiting two months was painful but it was good knowing this was coming. And it's finally here. Give 'em hell!
 
Looks like I'll be heading to Pullman. Probably tomorrow for something I've been eyeing.
 
I'm in the market for a few guns, looks like these guys hit the top of my list.
 
To all willing to draw the line in the sand and hold the line to are not alone. You also have my thanks. I will visit my closest shop to show support as well


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Glockster30 said:
Why is there no reference to individuals that are confused with regard to the legality of selling a pre-7/20/16 enumerated guns in addition to the dealers? Is it because the listed dealers are members of FSSA and they cannot represent individuals?

If so, does it make any sense to file a class action suit for individuals using the same language and Due Process references used in the FSSA filing, or is it just not necessary?
Click to expand...

You don't think this is the only case that will be filed, do you... [wink]
 
Waher said:
Link to the actual filing:
http://www.nssf.org/share/pdf/092216-Complaint_for_Declaratory_Relief_As_Filed.pdf

I'm sure Comm2A has some nice surprises getting polished up in the skunk works.
Click to expand...

This is a good read - anybody can read and understand it.

The middle section is particularly good - it walks through the history of the federal and state AWB and shows the original legislative intent - nowhere was there ever an interpretation like what happened on 7/20, and to the contrary the interpretation and intent was as it always was until 7/20. AG overstepped her authority and her enforcement notice is not within the law.
 
terraformer said:
You don't think this is the only case that will be filed, do you... [wink]
Click to expand...

sounds like comm 2a is ok with this based on your posts. should i donate to them also?? (not at the expense of comm2a---this is not an either/or--you folks are first for my limited dollars)
 
I just hope they're bringing the right case. Making the right argument and with deep enough pockets.

I'm no legal eagle but I hope the don't **** it up for some other group who was taking time to build a better case. I have no reason to think so, so I'm not shitting on them. BUT shouldn't they have sued in state first? Won't the fed court just tell them to take it to the MA SJC?

Would like to hear GOAL and COMM2As thoughts on it. I'm sure they need some time to read and digest the filing though before opining.
 
Chris at Guns & Gear is a great guy and very smart with components / servicing pistols, rifles all firearms. Is a machinist at heart! Great combo!
 
jhblaze1 said:
I just hope they're bringing the right case. Making the right argument and with deep enough pockets.

I'm no legal eagle but I hope the don't **** it up for some other group who was taking time to build a better case. I have no reason to think so, so I'm not shitting on them. BUT shouldn't they have sued in state first? Won't the fed court just tell them to take it to the MA SJC?

Would like to hear GOAL and COMM2As thoughts on it. I'm sure they need some time to read and digest the filing though before opining.
Click to expand...

We'll have to wait for the Comm2A guys to chime in, but I'm pretty sure I heard that both organizations were included in the discussions, which I hope is true as Comm2A has a history of being laser accurate with their arguments.
 
I'm cautiously optimistic if for no other reason than that Healey's actions were so egregious and blatantly unconstitutional, BUT I worry we only get one crack at this.
 
jhblaze1 said:
I'm no legal eagle but I hope the don't **** it up for some other group who was taking time to build a better case. I have no reason to think so, so I'm not shitting on them. BUT shouldn't they have sued in state first? Won't the fed court just tell them to take it to the MA SJC?
Click to expand...
I have not done a detailed analysis of the NSSF filing, but one issue is that suing in the state court can, for all practical purposes, preclude federal review. An SJC decision can be reviewed by SCOTUS, but that is pretty much about it.

The federal courts sometimes bend over backwards to apply the "but it's guns" doctrine, however, the state courts almost always do so.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
I have not done a detailed analysis of the NSSF filing, but one issue is that suing in the state court can, for all practical purposes, preclude federal review. An SJC decision can be reviewed by SCOTUS, but that is pretty much about it.

The federal courts sometimes bend over backwards to apply the "but it's guns" doctrine, however, the state courts almost always do so.
Click to expand...

I see. I thought you'd sue in state first, then appeal to fed court, then appeal to SCOTUS.

Obviously if we can skip the SJC it would be cost effective since we know how they'd rule.
 
Since the USSC unanimously said in Caetano:
A State’s most basic responsibility is to keep its people safe. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts was either unable or unwilling to do what was necessary to protect Jaime Caetano, so she was forced to protect herself. To make matters worse, the Commonwealth chose to deploy its prosecutorial resources to prosecute and convict her of a criminal offense for arming herself with a nonlethal weapon that may well have saved her life. The Supreme Judicial Court then affirmed her conviction on the flimsiest of grounds. This Court’s grudging per curiam now sends the case back to that same court. And the consequences for Caetano may prove more tragic still, as her conviction likely bars her from ever bearing arms for selfdefense. See Pet. for Cert. 14. If the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe.
Click to expand...

Somehow I don't think the USSC would take too kindly to the MA SJC or the MA AG then acting out being "more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe.". The arrogant officials in this state constantly thumbing their noses at the USSC's authority are going to invite a well-deserved bench slap for insolence.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
I have not done a detailed analysis of the NSSF filing, but one issue is that suing in the state court can, for all practical purposes, preclude federal review. An SJC decision can be reviewed by SCOTUS, but that is pretty much about it.

The federal courts sometimes bend over backwards to apply the "but it's guns" doctrine, however, the state courts almost always do so.
Click to expand...

I think this is federal. US District Court, District of MA. Or maybe I'm confused.
 

Similar threads

Cheap vs Expensive Red Dots
Replies
8
Views
471
johngalt2
J
Holosun 510 vs Holosun AMES
Replies
6
Views
206
PappyM3
PappyM3
What the Sheriffs were told three days ago by the FBI.
2
Replies
51
Views
3K
ridleyman
R
Over-gassed vs Under-gassed
Replies
16
Views
412
fishhawk357
fishhawk357
Pre vs post ban Beretta mags
Replies
10
Views
585
Rob Boudrie
Rob Boudrie
Back
Top Bottom