-
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.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
NSSF filed vs AGO!
- Thread starter CAR
- Start date
I wouldn’t be surprised even if she loses this case that she prosecutes shops that sell AR’s just as she says. That would lead to another multi year court battle that she can’t really lose. Even if she loses she’s tough on gunz and blames the NRA.
SKumar
NES Member
Let her. The only reason why gun shops currently don't sell ARs is because they're unclear about the law. Before, there wasn't a problem because the law never mentioned "copycats and duplicates". If she loses this case, it'll be a glorious day when gun shops can revert back to the old interpretation of the law and sell ARs again.
If she had the authority, Maura Healey could literally order the search of all LTC holders homes and confiscation of any semi-auto rifle period, and a few dozen could die in the process, and she'd be lauded a hero by most of your fellow Ma**h***s and easily re-elected.
Mike
Mike
All she has to do is threaten them and they will all fold like a deck of cards.
Agreed.
No kidding.
I have been wondering about this but havent had time to research.
1) Technically, are the citizens of Massachusetts clients of the attorney general - as the AGs office is responsible for consumer protection?
2) If so, Does the actions that put people that purchased, sold, or posses an post 98 "compliant" rifle into potential legal jeopardy violate professional conduct rules of the BAR association?
IF 1 and 2 are TRUE - can we file a complaint and push towards disbarment? Filing a Complaint Against an Attorney | Massachusetts BBO
Trying for an outside the box twist. Really reaching though.
CatSnoutSoup
NES Member
Judge Refuses To Dismiss Lawsuit Against Healey Over 'Copycat' Weapons
In the above AP article published by WBUR they give the false impression that the only thing at issue is simple "fair notice" by Healey
So naturally in the article's comments section some gun grabber (downtown21) picks up on this over simplification and runs with it...
In the above AP article published by WBUR they give the false impression that the only thing at issue is simple "fair notice" by Healey
So naturally in the article's comments section some gun grabber (downtown21) picks up on this over simplification and runs with it...
amm5061
NES Member
It was a local "Community Leader" and fellow town meeting member. Spilka sat there ignoring everything I said for 10 minutes and then left me with 3 staff members so I could "provided details" to to my position. At least Rep. Walsh was willing to spend some time and talk about the issues (2 meetings of over an hour each, and lots of email).
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,555
- Likes
- 33,619
Spilka is on record as saying the AG's actions are "doing what the law intended".
Take heed - this was a double cross, as the details of the MA AW ban were the result of extensive negotiation with GOAL. I am reminded of Canada's mag ban (bill C68) decades ago. They included an "competition license" as a concession to the shooting community and, once the bill was passed, issued an edict "no such licenses shall be issued".
Take heed - this was a double cross, as the details of the MA AW ban were the result of extensive negotiation with GOAL. I am reminded of Canada's mag ban (bill C68) decades ago. They included an "competition license" as a concession to the shooting community and, once the bill was passed, issued an edict "no such licenses shall be issued".
They are acting in bad faith, they know it, and they know they can get away with it. Then they stand up there and point at gun owners and 2A advocate and say "why won't you be reasonable?" The general public has no interest in diving deeply into the background of what this state and others have done to gun owners, so they also look at us as being unreasonable. It is not reasonable to negotiate with someone acting in bad faith.
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2013
- Messages
- 436
- Likes
- 180
Can't someone just Sue that crazy lesbo with violating the Constitution and treason?
I believe elected officials take a vow to uphold the Constitution and the Second Amendment and also article 17 of the mass constitution are pretty clear
I believe elected officials take a vow to uphold the Constitution and the Second Amendment and also article 17 of the mass constitution are pretty clear
That's not likely happening, I'd even put money on it. By the time this case is finished marinating she'll either be governor or gone from MA politics... or the legislature will have passed an AWB / semi ban kinda mooting most of the case.
-Mike
Mike S
NES Member
Interesting: "Healey argued that, even if she were required to take down the notice, her office could still prosecute gun shops for selling copies or duplicates of the weapons she listed, rendering the lawsuit useless.
Judge: Challenge to Healey’s gun directive can move forward
Judge: Challenge to Healey’s gun directive can move forward
I can put on a tri cornered hat and call myself Napoleon.
She has some mental issues and will never except the fact that being elected Mass AG doesn't qualify her as the new master of the universe.
It should be an interesting trial.
Let's see what happens when she tries to pull her act on a federal judge.
IMHO if she loses this one though I think eventually some dealers are going to call her bluff, though. "Ok, you lost... now try to prosecute someone, I dare you."
Right now she is like a kid waving around an airsoft gun in a robbery.
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
The more time that passes the more it will be viewed as an empty threat. There's already evidence on the ground that some dealers have defied her since 7/20, and basically, she's done nothing. Maybe some got threatened again, LOL.-Mike
Same here.
Unlike FOA requests she won't be flipping the bird this time.
Depends if the NSSF and/or other groups are willing to provide financial aid to a plaintiff.
Wouldn't she be in contempt of a federal court ruling? I assume federal judges don't like having their egos insulted and that there'd be some sort of retribution from the court.
That would be the case for any other right, but the right to bear arms is a "constitutional orphan" (a term coined by Justice Clarence Thomas in his dissent on the SCOTUS denial of cert for Silvester v. Becerra). It is treated as a second-class right, not deserving of the same protections as the other rights enumerated in the Constitution.
IMHO if she loses this one though I think eventually some dealers are going to call her bluff, though. "Ok, you lost... now try to prosecute someone, I dare you."
Right now she is like a kid waving around an airsoft gun in a robbery.
-Mike
If we win this case, a bunch of the more "daring" dealers will absolutely start selling ARs again. The ones who like to play it safer will see how that plays out, and if it turns out that the AG gives up and doesn't go after them then those dealers will follow suit.
This is an astute observation here. She loses and the legislature rectifies it with a comprehensive assault weapons ban. For the children. The whole case (even if won) is now moot.
Here’s the really bad news, the Federal courts have generally upheld assault weapon bans as constitutional.
At that point we are in destination f-ed. Queue assault weapon buy back (if we’re lucky enough that they offer to compensate people). Or there’s the next court case if they don’t.
IMO all roads lead (eventually) to confiscation of “assault weapons” in MA. Which puts me in the road out. Sucks, because I have a nice house in a nice spot.
Here’s the really bad news, the Federal courts have generally upheld assault weapon bans as constitutional.
At that point we are in destination f-ed. Queue assault weapon buy back (if we’re lucky enough that they offer to compensate people). Or there’s the next court case if they don’t.
IMO all roads lead (eventually) to confiscation of “assault weapons” in MA. Which puts me in the road out. Sucks, because I have a nice house in a nice spot.
I thought this case wasn't challenging the 1998 law (Mass. AWB) but rather her retroactive changing of its meaning, contradicting literally a generation of legal understanding by every other AG and the ATF for the previous 21 years.
Correct. He is speculating that if the AG loses the case the Legislature will just pass a new law that confirms, or goes further, than the AG's bullshit. And this is a legitimate concern.
