NSSF filed vs AGO!

... 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.

Would this trial or hearing or whatever the court procedings are called, be open to the public, since it is a public entity?
 
This legal action will drag on until either the state or the fed throws up a new assault weapons ban. I think it's safe to say we're proper-f***ed now.
 
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.

But it could be used in open court, correct? So maybe not publish it, but if relevant it could be brought up.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure I understand, why is she appealing the case getting dismissed? She won didn't she?

Could be wrong, but I think she is facing two different lawsuits. One got dismissed and now she is trying to get this one dismissed as well.
 
Hold the presses - this case is NOT going t go forward, at least not yet.

Today, the AG filed her notice that she'll be appeal the court's denial of her MTD. The First Circuit will now decide if the judge should have denied or MTD.

Notice: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.183678/gov.uscourts.mad.183678.51.0.pdf


How likely is this to be reversed based on the outcome of the other case? I thought they were on two different points, but are they close enough that the loss of the first case will screw this case?
 
I'm not sure I understand, why is she appealing the case getting dismissed? She won didn't she?
This is the NSSF case. She won the NRA case.

Dismissal suits the opposition because it bypasses all of that arguing the case on the merits peskiness. We would have had no difficulty demonstrating that a Glock loaded chamber indicator is "effective"; the court probably knew it; so the simple solution was to simply dismiss and not allow us our day in open court with real testimony; expert witnesses; and all that other bothersome stuff. (Draper v. Healy case)
 
Hold the presses - this case is NOT going t go forward, at least not yet.

Today, the AG filed her notice that she'll be appeal the court's denial of her MTD. The First Circuit will now decide if the judge should have denied or MTD.

Notice: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.183678/gov.uscourts.mad.183678.51.0.pdf

Tactically a good move; it increases our side's costs and delays discovery on the merits, and there's always a chance that she can prevail. (Generally, a party can't appeal the denial of a motion to dismiss until the case is over. But there may be an exception here to permit an interlocutory appeal on immunity grounds -- I know that is the case with some state law immunities. And it would make sense from a policy standpoint.)
 
Tactically a good move; it increases our side's costs and delays discovery on the merits, and there's always a chance that she can prevail. (Generally, a party can't appeal the denial of a motion to dismiss until the case is over. But there may be an exception here to permit an interlocutory appeal on immunity grounds -- I know that is the case with some state law immunities. And it would make sense from a policy standpoint.)
The First Circuit is firmly against us on all counts. I will not be surprised if they reverse the district court and grant the AG's motion to dismiss. I also think I called this a while ago.....
 
That's interesting. The court said that the AR was not suitable for war but all the rallies are calling the AR a weapon of war.
 
This legal action will drag on until either the state or the fed throws up a new assault weapons ban. I think it's safe to say we're proper-f***ed now.

Thsi is true and as long as it is in the Mass courts, we will never get a win.. it needs to be appealed to the USSC and if so I hope not until a couple justices vacate and Trump can add some suitable replacements.

But yea we are screwed..
 
Thsi is true and as long as it is in the Mass courts, we will never get a win.. it needs to be appealed to the USSC and if so I hope not until a couple justices vacate and Trump can add some suitable replacements.

But yea we are screwed..
It's long past time for Ginsberg to take the "Dirt Nap" .... I wish she'd hurry up!
 
There's not going to be a trial anytime soon. The AGO is in the process of appealing the court's denial of her motion to dismiss (MTD). The first briefing in that series will be due 6/18/2018. It will be a minimum of 45 days before all briefings will be complete. The First Circuit will then schedule a hearing and finally issue a decision. We're looking at the end of the year (ish) (probably).

If (big if) the First Circuit upholds the MTD denial. The case goes back to the district where it will be rescheduled.

Keep in mind, that the issue right now is not the merits of the case. The parties are contesting whether it was proper for the district court to deny the AGO's MTD. This has not even gotten started.
 
Now I'm going to throw a curve ball (if it is one)... Let's say she loses this Fall and is no longer AG and we get R for A.G. Where would that then leave this mess (both cases) given that scenario?
 
Now I'm going to throw a curve ball (if it is one)... Let's say she loses this Fall and is no longer AG and we get R for A.G. Where would that then leave this mess (both cases) given that scenario?
Cases continue with new names attached. In the very tiny, miniscule chance of 0.00000000000000000001% that Jay McMahon wins that seat, he'll nullify the cases by rescinding the AG bullshit altogether.
 
Cases continue with new names attached. In the very tiny, miniscule chance of 0.00000000000000000001% that Jay McMahon wins that seat, he'll nullify the cases by rescinding the AG bullshit altogether.
It would be better if he went to trial and deliberately lost the case so we don't have to go through this again.
 
It would be better if he went to trial and deliberately lost the case so we don't have to go through this again.

The Obama administration was deliberately doing this by coordinating with activist groups to bring suits for the government to throw their way as an end run around laws Obama didn't like.

If a gun friendly MA AG ever tried this the legislature would strip that office of any real power until the next AG took over.
 
Tactically a good move; it increases our side's costs and delays discovery on the merits, and there's always a chance that she can prevail. (Generally, a party can't appeal the denial of a motion to dismiss until the case is over. But there may be an exception here to permit an interlocutory appeal on immunity grounds -- I know that is the case with some state law immunities. And it would make sense from a policy standpoint.)

The First Circuit is firmly against us on all counts. I will not be surprised if they reverse the district court and grant the AG's motion to dismiss. I also think I called this a while ago.....

Based on her First Circuit PACER filing, it does appear Healey's claiming Eleventh Amendment immunity. Judge Hillman didn't seem to pay that argument much mind in his original order, just one paragraph addressing it out of 10 pages.

Is there any merit to this, or is this just a delaying tactic? It seems like they want to avoid discovery/trial at all costs.

From Healey's filing:
This is an interlocutory appeal of the denial of an Eleventh Amendment immunity defense raised in a motion to dismiss filed by Attorney General Maura Healey, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. See Pullman Arms, Inc. v. Healey, Doc. Nos. 22, 23, 4:16-cv-40136-TSH. Specifically, the Attorney General contended that the state law claims asserted in the plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint are barred by the Eleventh Amendment, in accordance with Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 106 (1984). The denial of an Eleventh Amendment immunity defense may be appealed immediately pursuant to the collateral order doctrine. See P.R. Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 143 (1993); Asociacion De Subscripcion Conjunta Del Seguro De Responsibilidad Obligatorio v. Galarza, 484 F.3d 1, 13 (1st Cir. 2007).
 
Back
Top Bottom