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.
I don’t trust the ‘GOP’ Senate at all - Mitch is still in charge.
Mass. AG Faces More Legal Pressure Over Unilateral Gun-Ban Expansion
Hearing scheduled for January 9th. The Comm2A Worman webpage has the filings.
Any initial news on how it looks, either for this or the Pullman case?
I Wasn't able to attend and I don't know anyone who was there. Audio recordings should be available tomorrow. I will post them as soon as possible.
Oral argument audio. Commonwealth lost, back to DC to deal with the merits.
I need the legalese translated please n thanks
Did they send a first year intern for this? From my hearing of this audio, she got slapped around like I've never seen before... any Attorney opinions here?
Basically, the Commonwealth had no business filing this appeal and they ultimately agreed.
Did anyone listen long enough the hear one of the judges telling NSSF's attorney that his daughter should think about med school.
Then they should be spanked by having to immediately pay back the plaintiff’s cost for a frivolous addtional proceeding (in a fair world).
I think the Dropbox link you posted is for the Pullman oral arguments from last year. This is the link to the Worman arguments: Dropbox - Worman CA1 Arguments.mp3
I'm 3 1/2 minutes in and I'm already impressed by the attorney's quick and cogent responses to the judge's questions.
Sorry, I think I got mixed up about which case was which.
Just listened to the Pullman arguments, it sounds like our side pinky promised to not argue that the AG overstepped her authority since that would violate her 11th amendment immunity, but that the federal civil rights and due process claims are fair game.
so what was the outcome?
AG's appeal of district court denial of summary judgement denied, case goes back to district court to actually be argued on the merits.
So the state's argument is that they are not self defense because no recorded use but they are military weapons because they have no recorded military use but look like military weapons that do have a recorded use?
Wrong case. You're thinking of Worman.
Forgive my ignorance, but thankfully I have not spent any significant time in the court system and IANAL, with the case being remanded back to DC, does the same judge hear the case that wrote the initial opinion, or is it assigned to a different judge?
After looking back through the comments, maybe I am confusing the two cases. Pullman was sent back to DC? What about Worman? I listened to the oral arguments, but could draw no conclusion from it.
Working through this stuff.
I think it'd be helpful if we put together a list of the mentioned legal guns, their cost, production status, and whether they share features or not.
In essence, all semiautomatic firearms share some sort of feature that's listed by the AG as being a no-go.
By "Commonwealth", does this mean "Comm2A", or the "Commonwealth of Massachusetts"?
I think we had a incorrect link that has fouled things up.
Were the relevant verbal arguments:
A) A 14 minute file of the AG getting raked over the coals on an appeal
B)34 minute debate over heller?
He means Fuhrer Healey had no business filing an interlocutory appeal about a spurious 11th amendment issue.
There are two MA AWB-related separate cases at play here filed by different plaintiffs with different causes of action that are at different stages of proceedings. Making it extra confusing, CA1 scheduled the Pullman/NSSF 11th amendment interlocutory appeal for the same day as the Worman appeal hearing, which is why links to both were posted.
The 14-minute clip was related to the interlocutory appeal in the NSSF/Pullman case.
Media release from the NSSF:
Federal Appeals Court Dismisses Mass. AG’s Appeal • NSSF
This is good news. Happy to see the case move forward.
I have such a hard time keeping these 2 cases apart without this crap.
Nice article in the Telegram and Gazette:
As lawsuit over assault weapon ban crawls along, gun group accuses AG of stalling
Healey comes across pretty poorly in the article IMO.
Now that there is blood in the water, they want to be seen as being on the right side.
When they wrote those letters I thought it was a good thing, probably is, but in reality it was a way for them to put a foot on either side of the line and wait to see who wins. Then claim they supported them from the beginning.
In addition, it would have been nice for the article to mention that the letters from both Baker and the Legislature demanded a response to specific questions. Healey ignored them. Maybe a follow-up email to the reporter asking "I found the letters mentioned in your article from the legislature, it asks AG Healey to respond to specific questions. I cannot find any actual response, can you investigate if she ever replied?"
The legislators won't do anything.
A. it's in court
B. "because gun"
Separate names with a comma.