NSSF filed vs AGO!

Dadstoys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
13,486
Likes
7,737
Location
North Shore
If you're grounded, you don't ask your friends' parents to un-ground you. Because they don't have the authority.

That is what's happening here. Maura's BS is an ultra vires state law violation and federal courts do not have the legal authority to adjudicate those claims.
In a perfect and just world you would be correct.
In MA. however , she could order airstrikes on every LTC holder in the state and they would find it constitutional .
 

Boston4567

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
548
Likes
473
Location
Merrimack Valley
In a perfect and just world you would be correct.
In MA. however , she could order airstrikes on every LTC holder in the state and they would find it constitutional .
That might be true, but I'm correct regardless of how just or unjust the world is ;).

The NSSF federal suit is useful, but it has given people false hope. It cannot give people the relief they want - the elimination of Maura's edict. The only possible way for us to get that, however unlikely, was through the state court system. And the delay in pursuing that action in favor of a federal one has greatly decreased the already-slim likelihood of getting it overturned.
 
Rating - 100%
99   0   0
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
16,143
Likes
4,723
If you people dont understand it you clearly have less than ordinary intelligence like myself
 

Dadstoys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
13,486
Likes
7,737
Location
North Shore
That might be true, but I'm correct regardless of how just or unjust the world is ;).

The NSSF federal suit is useful, but it has given people false hope. It cannot give people the relief they want - the elimination of Maura's edict. The only possible way for us to get that, however unlikely, was through the state court system. And the delay in pursuing that action in favor of a federal one has greatly decreased the already-slim likelihood of getting it overturned.
You are correct in that it would be the proper procedure .
But there is a reason that one or two of our legal eagles here call it the MA. marsupial court.
If I recall correctly in the case against her regarding Glocks , our side wasn't even allowed to present their case.
They ruled for her out of hand.
There has never once been a 2A case in MA. at least that I'm aware of that has gotten a fair shake.
When you already know the outcome of step A, go directly to step B instead of wasting time and limited funds.
 

Boston4567

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
548
Likes
473
Location
Merrimack Valley
You are correct in that it would be the proper procedure .
But there is a reason that one or two of our legal eagles here call it the MA. marsupial court.
If I recall correctly in the case against her regarding Glocks , our side wasn't even allowed to present their case.
They ruled for her out of hand.
There has never once been a 2A case in MA. at least that I'm aware of that has gotten a fair shake.
When you already know the outcome of step A, go directly to step B instead of wasting time and limited funds.
With your step B in this scenario (federal court), it is literally impossible to get the relief you want. The court doesn't have the authority. It is hard to imagine a greater waste of time and limited funds than pursuing the impossible rather than pursuing the highly unlikely.
 

Dadstoys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
13,486
Likes
7,737
Location
North Shore
With your step B in this scenario (federal court), it is literally impossible to get the relief you want. The court doesn't have the authority. It is hard to imagine a greater waste of time and limited funds than pursuing the impossible rather than pursuing the highly unlikely.
I'll defer to the folks that do this stuff for a living.
 

Charles Luo

NES Member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Aug 11, 2018
Messages
7
Likes
2
Does it mean we don't need to pin the muzzle break to a Tavor X95 since it is not an "assault weapon"? And barrel/rifle length just need to be longer than 16/26 inch.

Would you like a Tavor with your Schnauzer???
YES!!! Tavors now confirmed legal!!! (They have been sold for a long time but now you wont have to worry)
"The IWI Tavor is one the seven groups of weapons the AG’s July 18 motion argues was always clearly legal under its enforcement notice."

How about building your own .22 AR out of a brand new lower???
Go for it!!!
The other weapons the AG has deemed legal to sell are the the Kel-Tec RFB, the FN PS90, the Kel-Tec Sub 2000 and the Berretta CX4 Storm.

The AG noted that two other weapons the plaintiffs sued over – the Smith & Wesson M&P 15-22 and other .22 caliber rimfire AR-15 style rifles, and the Springfield Armory M1A – were already explicitly deemed legal by the AG in a follow-up notice released before the lawsuit was filed.



For those who are selling unobtainium:

The notice does not apply to individual gun owners who transfer banned weapons bought before the July 20, 2016 notice date.

Is this all good news or bad news???
The above information is clearly listed on the AG Enforcement Notice FAQ:

Frequently Asked Questions about the Assault Weapons Ban Enforcement Notice

You can even buy this...

Noveske Space Invader (with a pinned stock)
16" Gen 4 Noveske9 Rifle

This lawsuit has done nothing other than confirm the AG's Enforcement Letter FAQ.

Wake me up when somebody sues the AG for reinterpreting the Massachusetts Assault Weapons Ban.
Until then, pre ban AR15 lowers with documentation are worth their weight in gold.
 

milktree

NES Member
Rating - 100%
25   0   0
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
4,365
Likes
1,747
Does it mean we don't need to pin the muzzle break to a Tavor X95 since it is not an "assault weapon"? And barrel/rifle length just need to be longer than 16/26 inch.
Heh...
unfortunately the “features test” is still a thing.
 

milktree

NES Member
Rating - 100%
25   0   0
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
4,365
Likes
1,747
But Tavor has no pistol grip. The only feature is the flash suppressor. Or I missed something?
Er.. “no pistol grip”?

I wasn’t aware that the bark-buster made that grip “not-a-pistol-grip”

It’s certainly not a thumb-hole grip.
 

milktree

NES Member
Rating - 100%
25   0   0
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
4,365
Likes
1,747
Thought that it was all about “copies and duplicates”? Otherwise we would still be able to buy massified ARs
That’s part of it.

There’s two sections: the features tests, and the “copies or duplicates” test.

Anything that meets either is an “assault weapon”

The current question is if massified ARs count as “copies or duplicates”
 

milktree

NES Member
Rating - 100%
25   0   0
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
4,365
Likes
1,747
Same thought here. If Tavor is already defined as not an "assault weapon", why still using the feature test?
My reading is that it’s not an “assault weapon” under the “copies or duplicates” part, but still subject to the evil features tests.
 

Horrible

NES Member
Rating - 100%
16   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
11,513
Likes
3,231
Location
Central MA
My reading is that it’s not an “assault weapon” under the “copies or duplicates” part, but still subject to the evil features tests.
My interpretation as well. I was just trying to make the point that Mora’s dictate is arbitrary and capricious all the way around.

The fact that this has been upheld for as long as it has underscores how political and broken our court system is.
 

67ray

NES Member
Rating - 100%
167   0   0
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
1,773
Likes
825
With your step B in this scenario (federal court), it is literally impossible to get the relief you want. The court doesn't have the authority. It is hard to imagine a greater waste of time and limited funds than pursuing the impossible rather than pursuing the highly unlikely.
Why not? DOn't Federal courts remand issues to State Courts? Or make orders like the California state mag ban that was put on hold for ~1 week this year?
 

roccoracer

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
1,752
Likes
863
Location
The peoples republic of Massachusetts
I just purchased a HK416D .22 from a dealer. It has a flash hider and adjustable stock etc. The dealer said (I know dealers dont know the laws generally) that .22 rimfire is exempt from the assualt weapons ban." Maura said so in a letter".
Was it a legal buy?
 

Len-2A Training

Instructor
Instructor
NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 98%
48   1   0
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
51,109
Likes
8,624
Location
Escaping to NH
I just purchased a HK416D .22 from a dealer. It has a flash hider and adjustable stock etc. The dealer said (I know dealers dont know the laws generally) that .22 rimfire is exempt from the assualt weapons ban." Maura said so in a letter".
Was it a legal buy?
See my post # 921.

Per MGL the only exemption for .22LR is wrt a tube-fed magazine. Everything else has to follow the same laws as a .223/.308/7.62x39/etc. AG's BS is irrelevant to MGL.
 

C. Stockwell

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Dec 12, 2018
Messages
1,769
Likes
1,549
Location
RI
Why not? DOn't Federal courts remand issues to State Courts? Or make orders like the California state mag ban that was put on hold for ~1 week this year?
To remand something is to send it back from whence it came. The only Federal court that can remand a case back to a state court is SCOTUS if a case progresses first through the state court system and then goes to SCOTUS. Judge Hillman in Worcester can't tell the SJC or the Worcester County Superior Court what to do with this case.

That being said, I don't buy @Boston4567 's argument that there's literally nothing a Federal lawsuit can accomplish. Federal courts normally use state law when making decisions. The plaintiffs' argument in this case is that the AG overstepped her constitutional and statutory bounds. A Federal judge can examine Mass state precedent and law and make that determination when applying Massachusetts law. Put it this way, this case is past the motion to dismiss stage. If there was nothing for Judge Hillman to rule on, nothing for him to decide, the case wouldn't have survived the motion to dismiss stage of litigation as that's more or less the question Federal judges ask when examining a motion to dismiss: is there a plausible question of law or fact? If you really want to learn more (I don't suggest normal people doing this as its very boring), look up Twombley and Iqbal.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the case hasn't been removed from Federal to state court. If what @Boston4567 is true and there was literally no issue of Federal law to deal with or a diversity issue (as in interstate diversity), then the case would have to have been removed from Federal court to the state court. Removal is a formal process that defendants can motion for if there's no Federal question or the parties aren't from different states. That hasn't happened here and we're beyond the stage where the AG would've moved for removal - meaning there's some question of Federal law here that isn't best answered in state court.

There's a number of advantages to getting a case into Federal court. Normally, its faster than progressing through state courts. I don't know what's up with the Mass state cases in Mass Superior Court so I don't know if that advantage is manifesting here. Federal case law has precedent value in Federal court (here, 1st Circuit) and is only of persuasive value in state court. If you're going to make an extremely complex legal argument, you're probably better off doing that in Federal court as Federal judges see more complex cases more often.
 

Boston4567

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
548
Likes
473
Location
Merrimack Valley
To remand something is to send it back from whence it came. The only Federal court that can remand a case back to a state court is SCOTUS if a case progresses first through the state court system and then goes to SCOTUS. Judge Hillman in Worcester can't tell the SJC or the Worcester County Superior Court what to do with this case.

That being said, I don't buy @Boston4567 's argument that there's literally nothing a Federal lawsuit can accomplish. Federal courts normally use state law when making decisions. The plaintiffs' argument in this case is that the AG overstepped her constitutional and statutory bounds. A Federal judge can examine Mass state precedent and law and make that determination when applying Massachusetts law. Put it this way, this case is past the motion to dismiss stage. If there was nothing for Judge Hillman to rule on, nothing for him to decide, the case wouldn't have survived the motion to dismiss stage of litigation as that's more or less the question Federal judges ask when examining a motion to dismiss: is there a plausible question of law or fact? If you really want to learn more (I don't suggest normal people doing this as its very boring), look up Twombley and Iqbal.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the case hasn't been removed from Federal to state court. If what @Boston4567 is true and there was literally no issue of Federal law to deal with or a diversity issue (as in interstate diversity), then the case would have to have been removed from Federal court to the state court. Removal is a formal process that defendants can motion for if there's no Federal question or the parties aren't from different states. That hasn't happened here and we're beyond the stage where the AG would've moved for removal - meaning there's some question of Federal law here that isn't best answered in state court.

There's a number of advantages to getting a case into Federal court. Normally, its faster than progressing through state courts. I don't know what's up with the Mass state cases in Mass Superior Court so I don't know if that advantage is manifesting here. Federal case law has precedent value in Federal court (here, 1st Circuit) and is only of persuasive value in state court. If you're going to make an extremely complex legal argument, you're probably better off doing that in Federal court as Federal judges see more complex cases more often.
You're speaking mostly in generalities here, and I don't disagree with the general points you're making as such. But I was addressing the specifics of this case, and those general points don't apply to the specifics of this case, having read through all of the pleadings from both sides in both this case as well as the CCGW state case.

What we really care about is getting Maura's edict overturned. In order to avoid jurisdictional issues, the NSSF case has been so narrowly scoped to federal due process constitutional issues that even if they win on literally every point in contention, that cannot happen. Maura did move for removal if I recall correctly, and the only reason she wasn't successful is because it was so narrowly scoped.
 

C. Stockwell

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Dec 12, 2018
Messages
1,769
Likes
1,549
Location
RI
You're speaking mostly in generalities here, and I don't disagree with the general points you're making as such. But I was addressing the specifics of this case, and those general points don't apply to the specifics of this case, having read through all of the pleadings from both sides in both this case as well as the CCGW state case.

What we really care about is getting Maura's edict overturned. In order to avoid jurisdictional issues, the NSSF case has been so narrowly scoped to federal due process constitutional issues that even if they win on literally every point in contention, that cannot happen. Maura did move for removal if I recall correctly, and the only reason she wasn't successful is because it was so narrowly scoped.
Think about it this way. There's a high probability the state case will trudge through state courts getting shat on, similar to Caetano. If that happens, and if SCOTUS doesn't come to the rescue, don't you want a Plan B, i.e. this Federal case?
 

Boston4567

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
548
Likes
473
Location
Merrimack Valley
Think about it this way. There's a high probability the state case will trudge through state courts getting shat on, similar to Caetano. If that happens, and if SCOTUS doesn't come to the rescue, don't you want a Plan B, i.e. this Federal case?
Well the problem is, this case can't accomplish anything because the only points still in contention are whether Maura's edict applies to certain specific, named models of guns (the RDB, M&P 15-22, Tavor, etc.). The lawsuit's contention is that her edict is unconstitutionally vague as applied to those models. But I don't think it is, and those models are being openly sold in the state already, so even if they win there will be no change in the status quo. New AR-15s will still not be able to be sold in the state. Her edict will still be fully in effect. Even if the NSSF wins spectacularly.

I would have no problem with this lawsuit if the NSSF had thrown its resources behind a state lawsuit first, back three years ago when there was a chance of preserving the status quo and reining Maura in.

Edit: And Caetano was different, because the primary right being violated there was a federal constitutional right. Maura's edict is about exceeding statutory authority under state law, so only state courts can stop it.
 

SFC13557

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Aug 2, 2019
Messages
415
Likes
308
Location
Central Ma.
I bought a Tavor X95 last summer, according to the AG they are LEGAL in Ma. I'm sure Four Season'w wouldn't be selling them if Carl thought there was any way Maura could come after him.
 

Boston4567

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
548
Likes
473
Location
Merrimack Valley
I bought a Tavor X95 last summer, according to the AG they are LEGAL in Ma. I'm sure Four Season'w wouldn't be selling them if Carl thought there was any way Maura could come after him.
Yes, and that's the problem. The entire federal NSSF lawsuit is based on a question that's already been answered. The allegation the lawsuit is making is "there's no guarantee that someone else won't interpret Maura's edict differently as it applies to Tavors, etc."

Even a best case scenario win for our side in this case merely codifies the post 7/20/16 reality that Maura has laid out, it doesn't bring new AR-15s back to MA.
 
Top Bottom