NSSF filed vs AGO!

milktree

NES Member
Rating - 100%
25   0   0
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
4,365
Likes
1,747
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.
So... why wouldn't the AG's office just say, "OK, you win"?
 

Knuckle Dragger

NES Member
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,112
Likes
3,403
Location
My forest stronghold
The AG's motion to quash has been denied. Plaintiffs can go ahead and depose the four police departments in question.

The Attorney General argues that the requested discovery is not needed because she has stated unequivocally through her responses to interrogatories and requests for admissions that the firearms identified in the amended complaint are not “copies or duplicates” of an Enumerated Weapon. (Docket #86 at 7-8). However, she also specifically stated in her responses that her answer was subject to the limitation that “the AG is not the only law enforcement officer in Massachusetts who is authorized to enforce the Commonwealth’s Assault weapons ban[.]” (Id. at 16-19). In light of this admission, the undersigned finds that the information sought from the police departments is relevant to the remaining issues in the case. Additionally, the court finds that the discovery sought is proportional to the needs of the case and that the need for the information outweighs the police departments’ interest in non-disclosure.
 

Boston4567

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
548
Likes
473
Location
Merrimack Valley
So... why wouldn't the AG's office just say, "OK, you win"?
The AG's office has conceded that it doesn't believe her nonsense applies to those particular models of guns, but the problem is she doesn't have the authority to enforce her interpretation of her interpretation, because she had no real authority to make the original interpretation. So the plaintiff has the right to ask a court for relief.

I know, it makes your head spin.
 

426wedge

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Aug 15, 2011
Messages
1,904
Likes
674
Location
western MA
The AG's office has conceded that it doesn't believe her nonsense applies to those particular models of guns, but the problem is she doesn't have the authority to enforce her interpretation of her interpretation, because she had no real authority to make the original interpretation. So the plaintiff has the right to ask a court for relief.

I know, it makes your head spin.
Would this qualify as a Catch 22?
 

Boston4567

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
548
Likes
473
Location
Merrimack Valley
Is this related to this case?:

Judge denies Healey’s motion to block cops’ testimony in gun lawsuit

Apparently cops want to testify regarding the enforcement notice and she tried to have the testimony squashed.
LOL:

They also questioned Healey’s assertion that the distinction between banned and allowed weapons “has always been clear to persons of ordinary intelligence.”

“For the Attorney General to state that …” the attorneys wrote, “necessarily implies that those people from the Attorney General’s Office who struggled and were unable to determine its meaning … must not be of ordinary intelligence.”​
 

Palladin

NES Member
Rating - 100%
23   0   0
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
24,301
Likes
5,981
Location
Merrimack Valley
The Attorney General correctly states that Plaintiff’s 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) the Springfield Armory MIA; (3) the IWI Tavor; (4) the KelTec RFB; (5) the FN PS90; (6) the Kel-Tech Sub 2000; and (7) the Beretta CX4 Storm.

taken from the decision....so does this mean this lawsuit is only for the above firearms?? What about anything on the 'ban list'?
 

JJ4

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Jan 15, 2013
Messages
2,768
Likes
1,154
Location
South Central MA
The Attorney General correctly states that Plaintiff’s 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) the Springfield Armory MIA; (3) the IWI Tavor; (4) the KelTec RFB; (5) the FN PS90; (6) the Kel-Tech Sub 2000; and (7) the Beretta CX4 Storm.

taken from the decision....so does this mean this lawsuit is only for the above firearms?? What about anything on the 'ban list'?
I also seem to have missed how this became so narrowly focused. Were some of the claims dismissed?
 

Boston4567

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
548
Likes
473
Location
Merrimack Valley
I also seem to have missed how this became so narrowly focused. Were some of the claims dismissed?
I missed it too, until it showed up all of a sudden. I think they voluntarily narrowed their claims to avoid dismissal. I know I've beat this to death, but there really just isn't a good federal cause of action here
 

rivet_42

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
980
Likes
305

CatSnoutSoup

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jul 9, 2015
Messages
2,959
Likes
5,372
Location
Westgardminsterham MA
One thing I'm not getting from all the reportage about this motion: Does anyone know, or can anyone venture a reasonably educated guess, as to the expected nature of the cops' testimony?
I know an inquiry I would like made of these town's COPs.

What do you think is, and would act upon as, the law?

A.) The actual law as written, enacted, and held to by everyone for years.
B.) Healey's autocratic new interpretation.

:emoji_tiger:
 

Reptile

NES Member
Rating - 100%
93   0   0
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
13,639
Likes
3,775
Here is my guess:

COP: AG Healey, how do you want our police department to enforce your interpretation?

AG: I know there is no way to enforce my edict. It is based on my whim and not in law. It’s just meant to threaten dealers and prevent more ARs coming into the state.

COP: So what if we find a new AR?

AG: don’t do anything. If you arrest the owner he’ll take us to court and my little house of cards will collapse.
 

Dadstoys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
13,486
Likes
7,737
Location
North Shore
Here is my guess:

COP: AG Healey, how do you want our police department to enforce your interpretation?

AG: I know there is no way to enforce my edict. It is based on my whim and not in law. It’s just meant to threaten dealers and prevent more ARs coming into the state.

COP: So what if we find a new AR?

AG: don’t do anything. If you arrest the owner he’ll take us to court and my little house of cards will collapse.
I would think it may well be something along these lines.
It would most likely be her sizing up how much of a defense the individual we capable of putting up.
Her mentor Martha taught her that .
How fast can we break this monkey and force a plea.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jun 9, 2008
Messages
10,721
Likes
2,746
LOL:

They also questioned Healey’s assertion that the distinction between banned and allowed weapons “has always been clear to persons of ordinary intelligence.”

“For the Attorney General to state that …” the attorneys wrote, “necessarily implies that those people from the Attorney General’s Office who struggled and were unable to determine its meaning … must not be of ordinary intelligence.”​
Ok, so I wasn't the only one who had to go back and read that a few times. The paragraph above it literally says "It took us over two years to figure this out. It's always been obvious to people of ordinary intelligence."
 
Top Bottom