D
Deleted member 67409
So far they've only mentioned surviving a motion to dismiss.
-
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!
- Thread starter CAR
- Start date
So far they've only mentioned surviving a motion to dismiss.
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
Fixed it
Good point, just checked PACER and you're right.
this is on my list of must haves
boscru
NES Member
nice job offer, but we all know you folks at comm2a don't get get paid
![[cheers]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/018.gif "Cheers [cheers]")
. reminds me to log into the website for my annual, albeit small, donation. doing it right now.
Glockster30
NES Member
nice job offer, but we all know you folks at comm2a don't get get paid
Thanks for ruining my job offer. I was in the process of writing up a contract to not exceed $10M per year so that Occasional-Cortex didn't tax the hell out of me.
Yup, her office even said this. “The notice worked as designed”, shutting down dealers
It doesn’t matter, your a felon like the rest of us for having them.
VTski4x4
NES Member
Any update? The Worman appeal was denied.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/18-1545P-01A.pdf
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/18-1545P-01A.pdf
DarthRevan
NES Member
Ugh, such a long process.
Keep up the good work!
Keep up the good work!
Last Thursday the Commonwealth moved to quash subpoenas issued to four Massachusetts police departments. Deposition were scheduled for today, tomorrow and Thursday, (July 23-25), but the court doesn't appear to have taken any action.
On a related note, we (Comm2A) have until September 23rd to file our cert petition in Worman, our AWB case.
On a related note, we (Comm2A) have until September 23rd to file our cert petition in Worman, our AWB case.
I'm not up to speed on all this .
What were the police departments subpoenaed for?
Plaintiffs want to depose the PDs in person. I haven't gone through all the exhibits, so I don't have a clear picture of what they're fishing for. My sense is that they're looking for (among other things) instance where the AGO indicates that the notice wasn't meant to pursue prosecution and that they expect 'voluntary compliance'.
Is the AG's characterization of the narrowed scope of the action correct?
[T]his Court has ruled that this case is limited to the application of the Enforcement Notice on Prohibited Assault Weapons (“Enforcement Notice”) to the firearms identified by the Plaintiffs in the Amended Complaint
[...]
Plaintiffs’ remaining claims only concern application of the Enforcement Notice to the following semi-automatic rifles: (1) the Smith & Wesson M&P 15-22 and other 22 caliber rimfire AR-15 style rifles;2 (2) the Springfield Armory M1A; (3) the IWI Tavor; (4) the Kel-Tec RFB; (5) the FN PS90; (6) the Kel-Tec Sub 2000; and (7) the Berretta CX4 Storm
[...]
Plaintiffs’ remaining claims only concern application of the Enforcement Notice to the following semi-automatic rifles: (1) the Smith & Wesson M&P 15-22 and other 22 caliber rimfire AR-15 style rifles;2 (2) the Springfield Armory M1A; (3) the IWI Tavor; (4) the Kel-Tec RFB; (5) the FN PS90; (6) the Kel-Tec Sub 2000; and (7) the Berretta CX4 Storm
If so, what can really be accomplished by this lawsuit at this point?
426wedge
NES Member
I would think the manufacturer does not matter.
Thank you .
bfm
NES Member
To try to get more information to build future cases.
I can't answer that as Comm2A is not a party to this action. Plaintiff's have until Thursday to file an objection (if any) to the motion to quash.
So, at this point the NSSF case is not even about common AR15's???
The case is only about the guns listed above?
At AG FAQ states that those guns are legal...
"
Are there examples or categories of weapons that are not copies or duplicates of Assault Weapons?
Yes. Many rifles, shotguns, and pistols are not copies or duplicates of enumerated Assault Weapons. For example, the following are not copies or duplicates under G.L. c. 140, § 121:
- Any handgun on the August 2016 version of the state’s Approved Firearms Roster, available here.
- Handguns are still subject to MA 940 CMR 16.00 et seq Consumer Protection Regulations;
- Any .17 or .22 caliber rimfire rifle;
- Any Ruger Mini 14 or substantially similar model weapon;
- Beretta Cx4 Storm
- FN PS90 or substantially similar model weapon;
- IWI Tavor or substantially similar model weapon;
- Kel-Tec Sub-2000
- Kel-Tec RFB
- Any Springfield Armory M1A or substantially similar model weapon;
- Any of the hundreds of rifles and shotguns on this list —Appendix A to 18 U.S.C. § 922, as appearing on September 13, 1994;
- Any weapon that is operated by manual bolt, pump, lever, or slide action;
- Any weapon that is an antique, relic, or theatrical prop;
- Any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than five rounds of ammunition;
- Any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than five rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.
"
Frequently Asked Questions about the Assault Weapons Ban Enforcement Notice
Gotcha, so many cases flying around it's hard to keep them straight.
This is the problem with pursuing a federal case here rather than a state one. I've been chirping about this from the start, in this thread and others, because it was a huge misstep.
The first case to be filed against this should have been in state court, it should have been immediately after Healey's edict came down, and a temporary restraining order should have been requested to preserve the status quo. State judges might not like guns but they also probably wouldn't be huge fans of her ultra vires executive branch power grab either.
Now we're three years out from when her crap was handed down, memories have faded, and her BS is the new status quo. IMHO, the chances are high that even if her edict gets struck down in the state CCGW case, it will prompt the legislature to act to close this "loophole" that "the court ruling has opened up", and my bet is they'll throw some extra anti-gun crap into the bill on top of it, so Tavors, RDBs, etc. will be banned too.
For the record, it was NOT NSSF that dropped the ball back in 1998ish, it was another org called "American <something or other>" that went out of business many years ago (this info was from Nancy Snow, GOAL Chief of Staff at the time).
I'd say the historical record's not totally clear on that point... The American Shooting Sports Council was the plaintiff in the lawsuit. It was an alternative industry group to NSSF that included Glock and S&W. The NSSF "absorbed" the ASSC in 1999 under murky circumstances, and failed to pursue the lawsuit, leading to its dismissal in April of 2000.
It's not clear if ASSC just dissolved and the member manufacturers joined NSSF, or if it was actually acquired by NSSF in a formal manner. But most media sources do describe it as the NSSF "absorbing" ASSC. And if that's the case, and NSSF failed to carry on the ASSC's lawsuit, it's on them.
