NSSF filed vs AGO!

[42!]

Well of we are dreaming, the court could rule that the AG interpretation is unconstitutional, not the act of interpreting but the meaning. That would throw a wrench into any future law that's based on her interpretation.

Of course it's just a dream. I probably won't even remember it in the morning.

 

[Billsail]

I don't see the ban going anywhere just rolling back to the 1994 interpretation.

We never left the '94 interpretation here in MA. 7/20/16 made it worse.

 

[robjax]

it doesn't matter what the court rules. Mass lawmakers are working nights to implement her interpretation as law. The court is only going to rule on her interpretation. Nothing more. So even if they say her interpretation is wrong Baker will sign the new law based on her interpretation into law...probably with a few additional infringements now that the retard shot up that school in parkland . Then there will need to be another court case challenging the constitutionality of that law. And we will lose because a precedent has been set in I think Maryland (or insert state here) some years back where they determined that AR15's were not protected under 2A. So bend over and lube up so it doesn't hurt as much when they stick it to us.

The people are in place to make their rulings based in personal opinion rather than constitutionality. Politicians writing anti constitutional laws backed up by anti 2A judges and supported by civilian storm troopers armed with military armor. So it is rigged against us so the government retains all the control.

My guess is cattle cars shipping us to death camps is not far behind.

 

[groundscrapers]

We never left the '94 interpretation here in MA. 7/20/16 made it worse.

yea thats what I meant, pre healey interpretation.

 

[evalance]

it doesn't matter what the court rules. Mass lawmakers are working nights to implement her interpretation as law. The court is only going to rule on her interpretation. Nothing more. So even if they say her interpretation is wrong Baker will sign the new law based on her interpretation into law...probably with a few additional infringements now that the retard shot up that school in parkland . Then there will need to be another court case challenging the constitutionality of that law. And we will lose because a precedent has been set in I think Maryland (or insert state here) some years back where they determined that AR15's were not protected under 2A. So bend over and lube up so it doesn't hurt as much when they stick it to us.

The people are in place to make their rulings based in personal opinion rather than constitutionality. Politicians writing anti constitutional laws backed up by anti 2A judges and supported by civilian storm troopers armed with military armor. So it is rigged against us so the government retains all the control.

My guess is cattle cars shipping us to death camps is not far behind.

start putting lowers in your cart then and order as soon as the court rules against her

 

[CAR]

start putting lowers in your cart then and order as soon as the court rules against her

Why wait? The AGO office will have their press conference lined up and letters ready to go out to retailers well in advance of the ruling, and the price will only go up.

 

[evalance]

Why wait? The AGO office will have their press conference lined up and letters ready to go out to retailers well in advance of the ruling, and the price will only go up.

You don't have to convince me , plenty ship to MA . do what u gotta do

 

[amm5061]

start putting lowers in your cart then and order as soon as the court rules against her

That's why God decided that 80%s should be a thing.

 

[Comm2A]

Last week plaintiffs filed a motion to move forward and it was granted: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.183678/gov.uscourts.mad.183678.49.0.pdf

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A RULE 16 CONFERENCE
The Plaintiffs Pullman Arms Inc., Guns and Gear, LLC, Paper City Firearms, LLC, GRRR! Gear, Inc., and National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) request that the Court schedule a Rule 16 scheduling conference, and that the Court issue its standard preconference scheduling order in advance of the hearing. Now that the Court has denied the motion to dismiss, the case may proceed with the necessary discovery to allow the issues to be decided on their merits.

 

[amm5061]

Last week plaintiffs filed a motion to move forward and it was granted: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.183678/gov.uscourts.mad.183678.49.0.pdf

I can't wait to see the gymnastics she goes through to hide shit from discovery.

 

[SKumar]

YES! When is the date?? This could be a national story that affects federal policy. Thanks Comm2A for all your work. :emoji_thumbsup::emoji_thumbsup::emoji_thumbsup::emoji_thumbsup::emoji_thumbsup::emoji_thumbsup:

 

[MachineHead]

Maybe they can discover how useless an AWB mirrored exactly after the 1994-2004 ban has had zero effect on MSR deaths 14 years after their Fedban expired.

Maybe they’ll also discover how to use this gem written in her own words in court:

The Massachusetts assault weapons ban mirrors the federal ban Congress allowed to expire in 2004. It prohibits the sale of specific weapons like the Colt AR-15 and AK-47 and explicitly bans “copies or duplicates” of those weapons. But gun manufacturers have taken it upon themselves to define what a “copy” or “duplicate” weapon is. They market “state compliant” copycat versions of their assault weapons to Massachusetts buyers. They sell guns without a flash suppressor or folding or telescoping stock, for example, small tweaks that do nothing to limit the lethalness of the weapon.

Does this mean I bought a Massified version of the gun I really wanted and ripped myself off by concerning myself with these “small tweaks?” I know a few people who would’ve preferred a non-pinned stock.

Either way, give these arguments the light they deserve.

 

[oppressed]

I'd love to be able to ask in court under oath if she would rather hypothetically be tied up and shot by a .22lr or a 12ga. pump shotgun, since they are clearly less lethal weapons.


"But gun manufacturers have taken it upon themselves to define what a “copy” or “duplicate” weapon is."---pure gold to hear her lament them taking it upon themselves when she refuses to answer any questions asking for a definition or clarification.

 

[JohnZ]

They sell guns without a flash suppressor or folding or telescoping stock, for example, small tweaks that do nothing to limit the lethalness of the weapon

If deleting the features doesn't change a weapons "lethalness", then adding them doesn't either.

 

[bfm]

I can't wait to see the gymnastics she goes through to hide shit from discovery.

you mean like all the stuff she said was not subject to FOIA requests?

 

[amm5061]

you mean like all the stuff she said was not subject to FOIA requests?

Bingo.

 

[Friday]

If they get in too deep, they'll fold, and turn to the house to legislate this into to being. No way they will allow for disclosure in open court.

 

[ThePreBanMan]

That's probably true but they'll still owe dealers damages... How much inventory were they stuck with unable to move because her decree?

 

[Dadstoys]

Wonder how "Do you know who I am ?", works on a federal judge ?
I don't think she has any other mode but arrogant.
Dis gonna be good.

 

[JoseyWales]

These are Massachusetts judges? They rule on feelings not logic.

 

[Editor]

These are Massachusetts judges?

No. And in this case it's judge, singular, not plural.

 

[Frizzle Fry]

No. And in this case it's judge, singular, not plural.

Actually Timmy was a Massachusetts judge prior to his appointment to the Federal courts. He was always a very reasonable guy, however, I can't say I know from knowing him how this case is going to turn out... I was a bit peeved by the .223(.224 bore) .22(.223 bore or .224 for many handguns) decision that somehow these were not functionally the same diameter.

 

[Coyote33]

If they get in too deep, they'll fold, and turn to the house to legislate this into to being. No way they will allow for disclosure in open court.

Wonder how "Do you know who I am ?", works on a federal judge ?
I don't think she has any other mode but arrogant. ...

No. And in this case it's judge, singular, not plural.

I have a feeling phone calls are being made, and "back room deals" are happening or have already happened. This will be another slam-dunk for crooked politics, just like the 1998 gun bill.

 

[Dadstoys]

I have a feeling phone calls are being made, and "back room deals" are happening or have already happened. This will be another slam-dunk for crooked politics, just like the 1998 gun bill.

That may depend on what comes out during discovery and trial .
There may be some CYA stuff going on more so than twisting our titty some more.

 

[Coyote33]

The trouble is the AG, just like the governor and the legislature is exempt from the FOIA and "discovery" stuff that individuals and businesses are subject to. What a crooked, messed up state.

 

[Waher]

The trouble is the AG, just like the governor and the legislature is exempt from the FOIA and "discovery" stuff that individuals and businesses are subject to. What a crooked, messed up state.

No, they are exempt from records requests by the public. Not records requests as part of a court case. That's why this case matters so much. All the shit which was hidden from public view is now going to be accessible to the legal team.

If there something in discovery really damaging, which can't be compartmentalized to the AG, I bet the other conspirators tell her to fall on her sword to protect the team. Question is if someone with her ego would be willing to do that.

 

[Coyote33]

So, in other words, the crooked dealings of Baker, DeLeo, DiMasi Rosenberg, Murray, Travaglini, Coakley, Reilly, Harshbarger, could all be dug up; not to mention all the house and senate?

 

[Dadstoys]

So, in other words, the crooked dealings of Baker, DeLeo, DiMasi Rosenberg, Murray, Travaglini, Coakley, Reilly, Harshbarger, could all be dug up; not to mention all the house and senate?

I know I would love to see the e-mails between Faker and her

 

[Waher]

So, in other words, the crooked dealings of Baker, DeLeo, DiMasi Rosenberg, Murray, Travaglini, Coakley, Reilly, Harshbarger, could all be dug up; not to mention all the house and senate?

Yes, assuming they didn't do a good job erasing all of that or hiding it in private emails in such a way that they can't be found by the investigating legal team. It's also a question of how wide a request for records the judge will allow before declaring a request is an overly broad 'fishing expedition'.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Litigation discovery and public records, (aka FOIA) are two very different things. Discovery during the course of litigation is not subject to state or federal public records laws. A judge can order the disclosure of information that would normally not be subject to a public records request. However, the judge can, and normally would, also sequester that information or allow it to be redacted.

It could very well be that the judge in this case might order the AGO to submit information that is NOT subject to the state's public records law. However, if that happens, the parties would not be allowed to publicly release that information.