NSSF filed vs AGO!

Mike said:
This case was assigned to District Judge Timothy S Hillman

http://www.mad.uscourts.gov/worcester/hillman.htm

Is this good / bad or does it not matter?
Click to expand...

That Hillman was assigned was a foregone conclusion. He's the only Article III judge in Worcester, so when the plaintiffs decided to file there they knew, or should have known, that Hillman would be assigned.

I don't think this is favorable for the plaintiffs. In Morin, Hillman was all too eager to adopt the AG's framing of our case. He also seems to be skeptical about our arguments in the two cases we currently have going against the Gardner police department.

A smarter move would have been to file in Boston and take your chances that you might get a more open-minded judge. In the end, it probably doesn't matter as whatever decision(s) Hillman issues will likely go to the First Circuit.
 
We just can't win in this state. It's retarded seeing our state and hope for a sliver of a glimmer of light when we have states like Missouri that just cock-punched their Governor and went around him to pass Constitutional carry.

(Yeah, I'm pissed enough to use run-on sentences.)
 
Folks, if Comm2a has asked you not to talk about something, then please don't talk about it, even obliquely.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
MachineHead said:
We just can't win in this state. It's retarded seeing our state and hope for a sliver of a glimmer of light when we have states like Missouri that just cock-punched their Governor and went around him to pass Constitutional carry.

(Yeah, I'm pissed enough to use run-on sentences.)
Click to expand...
FWIW this is at the federal level but I get your point.
 
M1911 said:
Folks, if Comm2a has asked you not to talk about something, then please don't talk about it, even obliquely.


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

Whenever I see someone from Comm2a request something this is about the only response I have:

11992285.gif
 
To quote the conclusion that the AG presents
The answer to that question is no, because if the Enforcement Notice interprets the state Assault Weapons Ban in a way that burdens Second Amendment rights, the burden is insubstantial. At most, the Notice applies only to the narrow class of weapons that are “copies or duplicates” of the Enumerated Weapons. See Compl. Ex. G. It has no effect whatsoever on the thousands of firearms, rifles, and shotguns that are not assault weapons, either because they are specifically exempted from the state Assault Weapons Ban, because they were manufactured before September 13, 1994, or because they simply are not covered by the Enumerated Weapons Test. For example, as the Attorney General has made clear, “[t]he Enforcement Notice makes no change to the list of handguns, including semi-automatic pistols, on the August 2016 version of the state’s Approved Firearms Roster.” Compl. Ex. A, at 2
Consequently, notwithstanding the Enforcement Notice, the plaintiffs retain access to a wide range of alternative firearms to use or sell as permitted by state law. The Notice, therefore, imposes no substantial burden on Second Amendment rights, and the plaintiffs’ contingent Second Amendment claim must be dismissed. See Heller, 554 U.S. at 626 (the Second Amendment does not guarantee “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose”); Friedman v. City of Highland Park, 784 F.3d 406, 411 (7th Cir. 2015) (upholding ordinance banning assault weapons in part because it “leaves residents . . . ample means to exercise the ‘inherent right of self-defense’ that the Second Amendment protects”).
Click to expand...

I can't take her seriously anymore, even if it applies to what Maura considers a "Narrow class of weapons" they still are considered to be in common use and thus contradicted by her own statements. Also considering that the words "shall not be infringed" are part of the second amendment (which she chooses which part to quote) yet omits its it and then contradicts it.

It's reasons like this that America voted for Trump!
 
Did she really go to law school? Narrow range of firearms? It's hundreds. Assault rifle is full auto or burst-which is illegal to sell so it's misclassified. I could go on and on
 
RImike said:
To quote the conclusion that the AG presents


I can't take her seriously anymore, even if it applies to what Maura considers a "Narrow class of weapons" they still are considered to be in common use and thus contradicted by her own statements. Also considering that the words "shall not be infringed" are part of the second amendment (which she chooses which part to quote) yet omits its it and then contradicts it.

It's reasons like this that America voted for Trump!
Click to expand...


Did she seriously ****ing reference Heller in that conclusion? Is she ****ing delusional? Did she read the decision at all? God I wish she could be slapped down with a contempt of court charge just for that.
 
Her "narrow interpretation" banned the rifle most commonly used in matches run by the "Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety, Inc" (aka the Civilian Marksmanship Program or CMP,) a federally chartered organization "dedicated to training and educating U. S. citizens in responsible uses of firearms and airguns through gun safety training, marksmanship training and competitions" which was created by federal law (Title 36 U. S. Code, 40701-40733.) Thousands of civilian competitors use these rifles to compete locally, regionally, and at the national level all over the country (including in Massachusetts) every year. If that fact alone doesn't prove that these rifles are in "common use" then I have no idea what would.

Additionally, as she herself claims, there are many other rifles that are not covered by this law that use the same (or in many cases more powerful) ammunition, which brings the whole point of this law into question.
 
From the introduction

These weapons, designed to inflict more severe wounds in more victims than other semiautomatic weapons,
Click to expand...

Does she have a study that shows a particular firearm can actually cause "more severe wounds"? Ruling: Bullshit

gun manufacturers and dealers had made minor modifications to them and claimed, incorrectly, that they were therefore compliant with the Assault Weapons Ban.
Click to expand...

They met the requirements actually set forth by the Massachusetts Legislation, not by HER interpretation.

The actual definition is, and does not include the language "copycat" anywhere.

Legislation said:
a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon ;
(iii) a bayonet mount;
(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
(v) a grenade launcher;
Click to expand...

**** her! She did all of this to show that twat Hitlery what she would do if she was elected to a position on her staff or, God forbid and appointment to SCJ.
Well bitch it all backfired in your face and I hope you are run out of the U.S. to someplace where you can rule with other Dictators, emphasis on Dic.
 
bigblue said:
I notice there is no reference to July 20.
Click to expand...

I am still reading her crap and I notice she references the "Federal Assault Weapons Ban" that has since expired. It has apparently had no real effect since it has never been sought to be re-instated.
Also for some unknown reason she keeps quoting "Copies or Duplicates" even though that terminology has only been used by her as of her July 20 directive.

The ban did not apply to assault weapons that were possessed lawfully before September 13, 1994, the enactment date of the statute. § 110102(a); 108 Stat. at 1997. The law also exempted 661 rifles and shotguns, listed on Appendix A to the statute, that were commonly used in hunting and target practice. § 110102(a); 108 Stat. at 1997, 2000–10.
Click to expand...

AR-15's are "commonly used in hunting and target practice" More than most other firearms.

And for the last ****ing time, The Second Amendment has never been about "HUNTING AND TARGET PRACTICE". It's been there so "the people" can take back an out of control government.

not exactly a quote said:
What we've got here is failure to communicate.
Some women, you just can't reach.
So you get what we had here last week -- which is the way she wants it.
Well, she gets it.
Click to expand...


Mitt Romney said:
“They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”
Click to expand...

An inanimate object does no such thing. This is virtually impossible.
 
Last edited:
RImike said:
To quote the conclusion that the AG presents


I can't take her seriously anymore, even if it applies to what Maura considers a "Narrow class of weapons" they still are considered to be in common use and thus contradicted by her own statements. Also considering that the words "shall not be infringed" are part of the second amendment (which she chooses which part to quote) yet omits its it and then contradicts it.

It's reasons like this that America voted for Trump!
Click to expand...

Although I agree with you, I firmly believe that the judge will suck for her argument . . . hook, line and sinker and rule against us here.


jasons said:
Her "narrow interpretation" banned the rifle most commonly used in matches run by the "Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety, Inc" (aka the Civilian Marksmanship Program or CMP,) a federally chartered organization "dedicated to training and educating U. S. citizens in responsible uses of firearms and airguns through gun safety training, marksmanship training and competitions" which was created by federal law (Title 36 U. S. Code, 40701-40733.) Thousands of civilian competitors use these rifles to compete locally, regionally, and at the national level all over the country (including in Massachusetts) every year. If that fact alone doesn't prove that these rifles are in "common use" then I have no idea what would.

Additionally, as she herself claims, there are many other rifles that are not covered by this law that use the same (or in many cases more powerful) ammunition, which brings the whole point of this law into question.
Click to expand...

Her answer would be that CMP originally featured M1 Garands and she still will allow you to have those. And again, I expect the judge to agree with her.
 
She did all of this to show that twat Hitlery what she would do if she was elected to a position on her staff or, God forbid and appointment to SCJ.
Well bitch it all backfired in your face and I hope you are run out of the U.S. to someplace where you can rule with other Dictators, emphasis on Dic.
Click to expand...

No. She did it because a gay Muslim in Orlando was outed by his father and/or wife, and shot up a gay club to overcompensate. Healey, being gay, couldn't let 49 other gays' deaths go un-avenged. If Omar Mateen hadn't done what he did, we'd still have "state compliant ARs."
 
There is a good chance even a marsupial court will dismiss the MTD. MTDs and motions for summary judgement on the plaintiff's side are pro-forma in a civil case, just like a motion to dismiss is usually offered by the defense in a criminal case. These usually don't go anywhere as granting them reduces employment for attorneys, legal fees, and work for judges.
 
dhuze said:
I am still reading her crap and I notice she references the "Federal Assault Weapons Ban" that has since expired. It has apparently had no real effect since it has never been sought to be re-instated.
Also for some unknown reason she keeps quoting "Copies or Duplicates" even though that terminology has only been used by her as of her July 20....
Click to expand...

Chapter 140 section 121 contains the copies and duplicates language. That is where she is getting it. She is simply expanding the ban by reinterpreting the meaning of "copies and duplicates".
 

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
485
johngalt2
J
Holosun 510 vs Holosun AMES
Replies
6
Views
225
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
380
Uzi2
U
Back
Top Bottom