NSSF filed vs AGO!

terraformer said:
You don't think this is the only case that will be filed, do you... [wink]
Click to expand...

They wrote a solid complaint. One more measure that would've been sweet to have thrown in is the AG's specific mention that cosmetic features were just that. Beyonet lugs, collapsible stocks, and flash hiders were specifically mentioned as cosmetic by the AG, thus further painting herself into a coronary.

As decreed by the AGO in her own opinion piece:

IMG_2992.JPG

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...weapons-ban/eEvOBklTriWcGznmXqSpYM/story.html
 
Last edited:
The first impression I have of this filing is that even it this case wins in the end (and I'm talking about a certain appeal), the AG will 'win' in the end. Even if the district court and first circuit accept the argments put forward by the plaintiffs, AG Healey will still claim credit for taking the 'moral highroad' and blame any defeat on the gun lobby and activist judges. She really has nothing to lose here and knows it.

The real meat in a case like this is not the complaint and answer to the complaint. Once those are filed there's usually a hearing to set a schedule for pleading. The parties will file motions for summary judgement or motions to dismiss, either serially or as cross motions and there'll be another hearing on the motions. Whatever decision comes out of that will surely be appealed.

shurmanter said:
Why would they?
Click to expand...
Bravo Company isn't a logical plaintiff as they don't actually sell 'firearms' in Massachusetts. Including them would have been a distraction even if they'd wanted to participate.

Sabougolden said:
Chris at Guns & Gear is a great guy and very smart with components / servicing pistols, rifles all firearms. Is a machinist at heart! Great combo!
Click to expand...
I've known Chris and Judith for many, many years. They'e great people like all of these plaintiffs. Get out there and support them. Being a plaintiff is not without risk in this environment, they are putting themselves on the line here and deserve your support.
 
jhblaze1 said:
I see. I thought you'd sue in state first, then appeal to fed court, then appeal to SCOTUS.

Obviously if we can skip the SJC it would be cost effective since we know how they'd rule.
Click to expand...

Three ways to get to SCOTUS:

1. State court of record > State court of appeals > State Supreme Court > SCOTUS
2. Federal court of record > Federal court of appeals > SCOTUS
3. Original Jurisdiction

#3 isn't applicable here. Rob commented on what would happen if you did #1. #2 is the best option here.
 
Sounds like this was carefully thought out and lined up with the right people [thumbsup]
Would I be correct in thinking if what she did is ruled uncontitutional that it would leave the state wide open for a metric ton of lawsuits for damages by dealers?
 
tk421991 said:
Three ways to get to SCOTUS:

1. State court of record > State court of appeals > State Supreme Court > SCOTUS
2. Federal court of record > Federal court of appeals > SCOTUS
3. Original Jurisdiction

#3 isn't applicable here. Rob commented on what would happen if you did #1. #2 is the best option here.
Click to expand...
Does the recent "bench slap" of the SJC by the SCOTUS leave them more prone to be slapped again if they apply the same faulty logic they used for Caetano (and for every other 2a case)?

Sent from my C6530 using Tapatalk
 
Dadstoys said:
Sounds like this was carefully thought out and lined up with the right people [thumbsup]
Would I be correct in thinking if what she did is ruled uncontitutional that it would leave the state wide open for a metric ton of lawsuits for damages by dealers?
Click to expand...

Goals Facebook post about this says this will be first of many suits filed.
 
pastera said:
Does the recent "bench slap" of the SJC by the SCOTUS leave them more prone to be slapped again if they apply the same faulty logic they used for Caetano (and for every other 2a case)?

Sent from my C6530 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I don't know, Rob or someone can probably give you a better picture.

Connecticut and NY's AWB tightening laws were challenged after they were passed in 2012 and the bans were upheld by the 2nd Court of Appeals (NY, CT and VT). Writ of Cert was not granted, so SCOTUS didn't hear the case. In order for SCOTUS to grant Cert, four out of the current eight judges have to approve.

http://ccdl.us/blog/tag/shew-v-malloy/
 
tk421991 said:
I don't know, Rob or someone can probably give you a better picture.

Connecticut and NY's AWB tightening laws were challenged after they were passed in 2012 and the bans were upheld by the 2nd Court of Appeals (NY, CT and VT). Writ of Cert was not granted, so SCOTUS didn't hear the case. In order for SCOTUS to grant Cert, four out of the current eight judges have to approve.

http://ccdl.us/blog/tag/shew-v-malloy/
Click to expand...
Given this was fiat versus legislative action I would like to believe the SCOTUS would take action.

Sent from my C6530 using Tapatalk
 
tk421991 said:
I don't know, Rob or someone can probably give you a better picture.

Connecticut and NY's AWB tightening laws were challenged after they were passed in 2012 and the bans were upheld by the 2nd Court of Appeals (NY, CT and VT). Writ of Cert was not granted, so SCOTUS didn't hear the case. In order for SCOTUS to grant Cert, four out of the current eight judges have to approve.

http://ccdl.us/blog/tag/shew-v-malloy/
Click to expand...

Isn't this case different though because those bans were enacted through legislation and not through a reinterpretation or phony made up gibberish by the AG?

BTW, it would be nice if the Court granted the permanent injunction as asked in the filing (I know, wishful thinking).
 
Glockster30 said:
Isn't this case different though because those bans were enacted through legislation and not through a reinterpretation or phony made up gibberish by the AG?
Click to expand...
Yes, however, it is also a caution that any challenge to the AG's edict must be based on it being a mis-statement of the law, abuse of authority, etc. and not based on "AW bans are facially unconstitutional" as the later is doomed to failure.
 
I assuming they were named as plaintiffs because they contributed money to the legal battle. I am curious how many other shops ponied up, that would be a nice list to have since I'm in the market for a 1911.

As for Sullivan, I went to High School with his daughter. He is an upstanding citizen and they are a great family. NSSF couldn't have gotten better legal representation IMO. If nothing else it shows we aren't rolling over and showing our bellies. Can't wait to see what follows from GOAL, and Comm2a
 
Junior314 said:
I assuming they were named as plaintiffs because they contributed money to the legal battle. I am curious how many other shops ponied up, that would be a nice list to have since I'm in the market for a 1911.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. Individual plaintiffs rarely share the expenses of litigation when there's an organizational plaintiff like NSSF (or SAF, NRA, Comm2A, etc.) leading the way. The named plaintiffs contributed their names and their 'harm'. That's more than enough and in this environment they're betting their businesses as well.
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
Not necessarily. Individual plaintiffs rarely share the expenses of litigation when there's an organizational plaintiff like NSSF (or SAF, NRA, Comm2A, etc.) leading the way. The named plaintiffs contributed their names and their 'harm'. That's more than enough and in this environment they're betting their businesses as well.
Click to expand...

Good point that I hadn't thought about. Either way I'm thankful.
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
Not necessarily. Individual plaintiffs rarely share the expenses of litigation when there's an organizational plaintiff like NSSF (or SAF, NRA, Comm2A, etc.) leading the way. The named plaintiffs contributed their names and their 'harm'. That's more than enough and in this environment they're betting their businesses as well.
Click to expand...
The problem Comm2A and other orgs has is a plethora of shops that will say "I'm with you, I will follow the case, I want you to win, but there is no way I will expose my shop to retaliation by signing on as a plaintiff".
 
Sawicki1991 said:
If I'm correct FFL are may issue. These guy need support. They now have bulls eyes on their back
Click to expand...
They are "shall issue" but the ATF examiner must determine the shop is in compliance with state law.

Perhaps you were thinking of MA state dealer's licenses.
 
On a related note, if your club isn't on this list then they're not a member of NSSF:

  • Agawam Revolver Club, Southwick MA 01077 * *
  • American Firearms School, North Attleboro MA 02763 * *
  • Boston Shooting Club, Ipswich MA 01938 * *
  • Danvers Fish and Game Club, Inc, Middleton MA 01949 * *
  • Hamilton Rod & Gun Club, Inc., Sturbridge MA 01566 * *
  • Lowell Sportsmen's Club, Inc., North Chelmsford MA 01863 * *
  • Mass Firearms School, Holliston MA 01746 * *
  • Minute Man Sportsman's Club, Inc., Burlington MA 01803 * *
  • Mystic Valley Gun Club, Malden MA 02148 * *
  • Nantucket Hunting Association, Inc., Nantucket MA 02554 * *
  • New England Airgun Inc, Hudson MA 01749 * *
  • Nipmuc Rod and Gun Club, Upton MA 01568 * *
  • Old Colony Sportsmens Association, Inc., Pembroke MA 02359 * *
  • Quaboag Sportsmen's Club, Inc., Warren MA 01083 * *
  • Scituate Rod & Gun Club, Inc., North Scituate MA 02060 * *
  • Taunton Rifle & Pistol Club, Inc., Taunton MA 02780 * *
  • Tyngsboro Sportsmen's Club, Tyngsboro MA 01879 * *
  • Wayland Rod & Gun Club Inc., Wayland MA 01778 * *
  • Weston Shooters Club, Weston MA 02493 * *
  • Woburn Sportsmen's Association, Inc., Bedford MA 01730 * *

EVERY club in MA should be on that list.
 
tk421991 said:
. In order for SCOTUS to grant Cert, four out of the current eight judges have to approve.

http://ccdl.us/blog/tag/shew-v-malloy/
Click to expand...

anyone starting to see HOW IMPORTANT who picks the next SCOTUS judge just became?

Knuckle Dragger said:
Not necessarily. Individual plaintiffs rarely share the expenses of litigation when there's an organizational plaintiff like NSSF (or SAF, NRA, Comm2A, etc.) leading the way. The named plaintiffs contributed their names and their 'harm'. That's more than enough and in this environment they're betting their businesses as well.
Click to expand...

NES skinflints, get out your wallets.

I will be in Pullman tomorrow, because they're the closest one, but I'll be in all 4 by EOM.
 
Great Stuff. We need to support these businesses as well as the NSSF, GOAL, and Comm2A. Tell the NRA to pound sand.

This case will have ripple effects across the country.
 

Similar threads

post trump, covid vax family relations: conservatives vs liberals
3 4 5
Replies
130
Views
3K
67ray
67ray
Cheap vs Expensive Red Dots
Replies
8
Views
489
johngalt2
J
Holosun 510 vs Holosun AMES
Replies
6
Views
231
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
392
Uzi2
U
Back
Top Bottom