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.
Guest Monadnock & NES Need your Help!!!
Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by CAR, Sep 22, 2016.
Wait, they can DO that? Then why haven't they done it yet? Oh yeah, they are on the same team.
Neither did I! So there is a tiny grain of hope after all.
That is why someone that runs for AG, and touts how quickly they will withdraw the firearm related 93A stuff, wil result in the legislature acting as fast as they did with bump stocks to make sure the former "standards" are codified, thus nullifying the new AG. We really need someone to run as an R, who glorifies all the stuff the D AGs push, gets into office, and slowly and quietly does the total opposite. Basically the reverse of a rhino. Bonus points for the person being a D to start.
Off topic, but in a quick google search to remind myself what the consumer regulation is; i came across this doc: https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2016/12/wg/ag-handgun-regulation-enforcement-notices.pdf
I cant believe we lost the glock case. The notice says if anyone is unsure if a firearm has a chamber loaded indicator talk to the manufacture. So it makes the manufacture the authority, not the AG. WTF
"If the handgun is a semiautomatic pistol, does it have either a load indicator or a magazine safety disconnect (Section 16.05(3))? Again, if you are unsure, ask the manufacturer."
The Commonwealth's brief was filed yesterday: Pullman - Healey Brief.pdf
If I'm able to wrap my brain around this proper, the state is trying to get the Eleventh Amendment challenge dismissed because she was acting within her bounds?
She's trying to get the case dismissed by raising the 11th amendment as a defense. She's claiming federal courts have no jurisdiction because it's a matter of state law and that makes her immune from federal lawsuits.
I'm still trying to wrap my own brain around this bullshit.
Scum like her believe they're above the law and unfortunately they get away with what they violate and so in reality they are, at least most of the time.
Healey is a far left radical Progressive who believes her cause is just and WE are misguided white gun toting racists. Her homosexuality has contributed to her beliefs the country is racist and bigoted and she, like her idol Barack Hussein Obama, are enlightened liberals who must destroy all remnants of old school White America
Yes, they definitely do believe they are enlightened when in reality they're just light in the head.
I believe the best way to describe it is, it's a political maneuver without legal merit. The goal is to delay the trial until after the election. And to cross their fingers and hope they can pull judges for the panel that care more about banning guns than about upholding the law.
It's interesting that this megalomaniac cited the 9th Circus Court among others to support her position. Because there are contradictory decisions on the 11th amendment, it's difficult to grasp it's use and success as an immunity defense.
Massachusetts has only 1 branch of government.
This bullshit makes my head spin. I feel like i dropped 10 to 20 IQ points reading all of that.
Looking forward to the possibility that Maura's delay tactics cue up the MA AWB as the first to reach the Supreme Court with Justice Kavanaugh. From Kavanaugh's dissent in the D.C. Circuit case Heller II:
Yeah well this would still be an issue I'd like to see rectified.
Long, Long way to go before this would get to SCOTUS.
Moreover, If it was looking like the SCOTUS would rule against the AG, i could absolutely see her withdrawing or otherwise altering her "notice" just to kill the case off. (i believe there is a legal term for that - but it escapes me at the moment)
Yup, see newly appointed Judge Kavanaugh. Maura is crying in her organic cheerios this morning.
Newly appointed? Try "nominated", let's not get ahead of ourselves.
Did anyone manage to catch this gem from the settlement of Defense Distributed et al vs Department of State:
"... the government expressly acknowledges that non-automatic firearms up to .50-caliber – including modern semi-auto sporting rifles such as the popular AR-15 and similar firearms – are not inherently military."
I found that interesting. Maybe it's ammo to use in another case like this one?
Does a "settlement" have any of the same power as a decision?
I can imagine that a settlement wouldn't count as precedent because it happens "outside" the courtroom.
Assuming, of course, that English definitions have any meaning at all anymore in law.
I believe the settlement is ultimately filed with the court, and has the same effect as a federal District Court decision. It is binding on the parties to the settlement, but it is not precedential. Only a Supreme Court decision would be binding nationwide precedent.
However, like a District Court decision, it can be cited for its persuasive value, and that makes it quite useful given the government's admissions.
Last week Pullman et. al. filed their brief in the AG's appeal of the DC decision (see attached). The AG has until 8/28 to file a reply. Shortly after we should have a date scheduled.
Thanks for the update and all that you do.
The opponent would feature this in attack ads and be assured of a win in MA.
That's not happening unless we somehow got a secretly blue dog D that operates as a "gay deceiver" type in with the cabal who then stabs them in the back after taking office. That's literally the only way this could be pulled off. MA is NEVER getting an (R) AG, you can count on that.. particularly with the shitty MA GOP f***ing that one up every time.
Why does the first paragraph of the summary of the argument read:
I think because we're currently arguing against Maura's appeal of the court's decision not to grant her motion to dismiss? I might have that confused though.
you’re spot on
The courts have not yet gotten around to writing a decision not only upholding Maura's edict but complimenting her for the commitment to public safety. They are just going through the motions to make everything look good before they issue a fair and impartial decision that was a fait accompli before listening to any evidence or testimony.
Fresh lawsuit filed by gun shops over Massachusetts ‘assault weapon’ expansion
Separate names with a comma.