• 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.

NSSF filed vs AGO!

Herr Healey is a liberal politician who toes the party line. Remember, this was a gift to the Hillary campaign and Maura expected to be working in DC for the Hillary admin. HAAA, sucks to be you Maura, MAGA! I guess she's not a member of the Pink Pistols.
 
JJ4 said:
Yes, but many of them were pissed that she stepped on their authority, and then snubbed her nose at them by ignoring their inquiry. The fact that she ignored them should be included in the article.
Click to expand...
Correct but they know she's popular and powerful. They don't have the balls to confront her and go public with their criticisms. They know it was a publicity stunt and they were used but they also must toe the party line.
 
JayMcB said:
She my not be disgraced yet, but she certainly has been disgraceful. I hope the AG gets slapped down hard
Click to expand...
Even if she/the Commonwealth loses the case she will be hailed as a hero for standing up to(take your pick) The evil gun lobby, evil gun manufacturers, the NRA, the gun culture, toxic masculinity, white conservative males.etc. It's a win/win situation for her and her acolytes. Just look at Liawatha, do you think you'll see any angry white woman tearing her bumper stickers of their Prius's just because Lizzie spoke with forked tonque?
 
VTski4x4 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Which side are you talking about here (the "getting slapped around")? Too many different cases going on at the same time.


Coyote33 said:
By "Commonwealth", does this mean "Comm2A", or the "Commonwealth of Massachusetts"?
Click to expand...

Never got that answer (that I recall).


JJ4 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Which is appropriate and accurate. Would you not agree?


JJ4 said:
Yes, but many of them were pissed that she stepped on their authority, and then snubbed her nose at them by ignoring their inquiry. The fact that she ignored them should be included in the article.
Click to expand...

Good point! Maybe you should reach out to some of them to write the paper a follow-up article!!!!


rwl1955 said:
Correct but they know she's popular and powerful. They don't have the balls to confront her and go public with their criticisms. They know it was a publicity stunt and they were used but they also must toe the party line.
Click to expand...

Her power and popularity are waning. (see above).
 
JJ4 said: ↑
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.
Click to expand...

Glockster30 said:
Does anyone know if Healey filed the motion for a stay today?
Click to expand...

Assistant Attorney General Julia E. Kobick said Wednesday said she intends to file a motion Thursday asking the case to be stayed while a related case is heard in Suffolk Superior Court.
Click to expand...

Should it be inferred that Healey did not file the Motion for a Stay last Thursday (2/7/19) as her office suggested it would?
 
Glockster30 said:
Thank you, much appreciated.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure she'll lose, based on my understanding of the law. The federal courts have an obligation to adjudicate constitutional violations, and they have no right to make a plaintiff wait for the results of a different case being adjudicated at the state level, even if it's based on the same provisions of the constitution.
 
Boston4567 said:
I'm pretty sure she'll lose, based on my understanding of the law. The federal courts have an obligation to adjudicate constitutional violations, and they have no right to make a plaintiff wait for the results of a different case being adjudicated at the state level, even if it's based on the same provisions of the constitution.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I also found some interesting things in the Motion. One of them is that it states that her interpretation and enforcement is based on or "aimed squarely at protecting the safety of Massachusetts residents and law enforcement officers" and this cannot be denied (gainsay). It's always been my layman's position that 2nd Amendment restrictive laws have nothing to do with public safety.

This position appears to be considered this way in the Yale Law Journal wrt to the 7th Amendment that either you or Knuckle Dragger posted. To wit (bold font mine):

The Court also says that the history of the right to keep and bear arms shows that the right is fundamental and not subject to interest balancing.47 But traditional tests for many fundamental rights are, in fact, balancing tests.48 Speech, bodily integrity, and voting are all fundamental rights. These fundamental rights are evaluated by reference to levels of scrutiny.49 And all traditional levels of scrutiny50 require some explicit evaluation of the government interest. Strict scrutiny, for example, requires that a regulation be “narrowly tailored to promote a compelling [g]overnment interest.”51 Intermediate scrutiny requires that a regulation be “substantially related to an important governmental objective.”52 As Judge Kavanaugh wrote in his recent dissent in Heller II, these familiar types of scrutiny “involve at least some assessment of whether the law in question is sufficiently important to justify infringement . . . . That’s balancing.”53 The Heller and McDonald majorities appear reluctant to permit judges to conduct any balancing,54 even using these traditional modes of scrutiny.55 (Judge Kavanaugh takes this position in Heller II and other judges have echoed his conclusion.56) Given the majorities’ reluctance to apply even well-established modes of scrutiny in Heller and McDonald, it is likely they will be even more skeptical of exotic new balancing tests in Second Amendment cases.57

Even more perplexing, the quintessential government interest, public safety,58 has no special bearing on the scope of the right to keep and bear arms. At least, it appears to have no more bearing on the Second Amendment’s scope than it does on any other constitutional right.59 So, even if a court were to analyze a certain regulation using a forbidden balancing test, it is unclear what weight, if any, public safety adds to the scale.
Click to expand...

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cg...ir=1&article=5763&context=faculty_scholarship
 
Glockster30 said:
Thanks, I also found some interesting things in the Motion. One of them is that it states that her interpretation and enforcement is based on or "aimed squarely at protecting the safety of Massachusetts residents and law enforcement officers" and this cannot be denied (gainsay). It's always been my layman's position that 2nd Amendment restrictive laws have nothing to do with public safety.

This position appears to be considered this way in the Yale Law Journal wrt to the 7th Amendment that either you or Knuckle Dragger posted. To wit (bold font mine):



https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cg...ir=1&article=5763&context=faculty_scholarship
Click to expand...

Thanks I enjoy reading reasoned discussion, professional or not.

Edit: sincerely

:emoji_tiger:
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
Pullman's opposition to defendant's motion to stay was filed today.

Read this stuff. It is utterly incomprehensible at first, but the more you do it, the more it will make sense.
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting.

The "Summary of Argument" section is strong pointed language that makes it clear that the AG's effort to delay by linking this to a State Court case is out of bounds of the constitutional questions of this federal suit.

It is time to proceed, put up or shut up Maura.

Thanks again @Knuckle Dragger

:emoji_tiger:
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
Pullman's opposition to defendant's motion to stay was filed today.

Read this stuff. It is utterly incomprehensible at first, but the more you do it, the more it will make sense.
Click to expand...

Thanks! It looks like Healey's strategy here is to grind down businesses until they go under and then she wins by default. I can only imagine what must be going through someone's mind when they decide to open up a business and along comes some arbitrary bureaucrat (such as Healey) telling the business owner they must comply with some regulation that is entirely arbitrary and yet carried a long prison sentence. I can imagine a sense of exasperation on the part of the business owner whose livelihood and potentially freedom are on the line with vague rules that make no sense. I hope these guys prevail!
 
VetteGirlMA said:
Thanks! It looks like Healey's strategy here is to grind down businesses until they go under and then she wins by default. I can only imagine what must be going through someone's mind when they decide to open up a business and along comes some arbitrary bureaucrat (such as Healey) telling the business owner they must comply with some regulation that is entirely arbitrary and yet carried a long prison sentence. I can imagine a sense of exasperation on the part of the business owner whose livelihood and potentially freedom are on the line with vague rules that make no sense. I hope these guys prevail!
Click to expand...

I know that it's easy for me to say, but businesses should just ignore her guidance and start selling products again. After all, her "guidance" is just her interpretation of a law that was passed in 1994. MA adopted the ban verbatim in 1998, and no company in the country was ever prosecuted for legally selling "Massified" rifles during the 10 years of the ban when it ended in 2004 or from 1994 through 7/20/16, so Massified rifles were legal for 22 years. On top of that, she makes an arbitrary decision that any rifles owned prior to 7/20/16 are legal, although she has stated that this could change whenever she feels like it at a later date.

Then she compounds her foolishness by stating in her Motion to Stay that she did this for the public safety (to protect police officers and civilians). Guess what Maura, the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with public safety. As we all know, this is just pure BS by an evil person that is defecating on the US Constitution!
 
@Glockster30 : By "Massified", do you mean "compliant with the law"? In other words, the rifles were made without the items specified that they need to be made without in order to be compliant? I still don't understand how making a widget that meets "all requirements for selling widgets" is somehow not compliant with "all requirements for selling widgets". In other words, specs were laid out, and those specs were met.
 
Coyote33 said:
@Glockster30 : By "Massified", do you mean "compliant with the law"? In other words, the rifles were made without the items specified that they need to be made without in order to be compliant? I still don't understand how making a widget that meets "all requirements for selling widgets" is somehow not compliant with "all requirements for selling widgets". In other words, specs were laid out, and those specs were met.
Click to expand...

Correct, for lack of a better word, or a long, drawn-out description such as yours, I decided to use Massified to make it easier for everyone to understand. [laugh]
 
Glockster30 said:
I know that it's easy for me to say, but businesses should just ignore her guidance and start selling products again. After all, her "guidance" is just her interpretation of a law that was passed in 1994. MA adopted the ban verbatim in 1998, and no company in the country was ever prosecuted for legally selling "Massified" rifles during the 10 years of the ban when it ended in 2004 or from 1994 through 7/20/16, so Massified rifles were legal for 22 years. On top of that, she makes an arbitrary decision that any rifles owned prior to 7/20/16 are legal, although she has stated that this could change whenever she feels like it at a later date.

Then she compounds her foolishness by stating in her Motion to Stay that she did this for the public safety (to protect police officers and civilians). Guess what Maura, the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with public safety. As we all know, this is just pure BS by an evil person that is defecating on the US Constitution!
Click to expand...
I’ve been saying this all along. It sucks if you feed your family with an FFL License, But it seems obvious that nothing is going to happen with this bullshit and nobody is getting prosecuted. And the MA Legislature has a long memory. She may be still powerful now, but she is on an island politically and the Shore is eroding more and more everyday.
 
SgtHal75 said:
I’ve been saying this all along. It sucks if you feed your family with an FFL License, But it seems obvious that nothing is going to happen with this bullshit and nobody is getting prosecuted. And the MA Legislature has a long memory. She may be still powerful now, but she is on an island politically and the Shore is eroding more and more everyday.
Click to expand...
Not soon enough for us. This is the result of a corrupt one party State.
 
What is next on the schedule for this? Is there another date set, or is it just waiting for something with no set date?
 

Similar threads

Cheap vs Expensive Red Dots
Replies
8
Views
476
johngalt2
J
Holosun 510 vs Holosun AMES
Replies
6
Views
217
PappyM3
PappyM3
What the Sheriffs were told three days ago by the FBI.
2
Replies
51
Views
3K
ridleyman
R
For those who question the strength of M2A1 vs M2A2 ammo cans, here's an interesting article on the subject.
Replies
12
Views
367
Uzi2
U
Over-gassed vs Under-gassed
Replies
16
Views
414
fishhawk357
fishhawk357
Back
Top Bottom