NSSF filed vs AGO!

She is simply picking and choosing which items are arbitrarily banned based solely on the structure of her sentences:
The Second Amendment claim likewise must be dismissed because it is contingent on an impossible reading of the Notice, and because the Notice imposes no significant burden on the rights of law-abiding individuals to possess a firearm for self-defense in the home.
Click to expand...
What about the whole "shall not be infringed" part and that a firearm is no longer attainable. That is exact definition of "infringe". Not to mention Heller said otherwise as did McDonald.


dhuze said:
Does she have a study that shows a particular firearm can actually cause "more severe wounds"? Ruling: Bullshit
Click to expand...
Did she just open herself to legally justify (perhaps during discovery) the rational that the same caliber of cartridge is more lethal because it is fired out of an AR instead of a Mini 14? That is the crux of the issue here and why one firearm is banned and another is not.

If that can't be justified, could that create a method of repeal in a sort?
in 2015 alone, Massachusetts gun dealers sold more than 10,000 weapons that were nearly identical in design and function to weapons on the list of banned enumerated weapons
Click to expand...
I wonder how many other rifles were sold in 2015 and what the ratio was.
 
Last edited:
RImike said:
She is simply picking and choosing which items are arbitrarily banned based solely on the structure of her sentences:..............



Did she just open herself to legally justify (perhaps during discovery) the rational that the same caliber of cartridge is more lethal because it is fired out of an AR instead of a Mini 14? That is the crux of the issue here and why one firearm is banned and another is not................/QUOTE]

Don't worry, she will just add a FAQ section and change it as she pleases.
Click to expand...
 
MachineHead said:
Is a Motion to Dismiss a unilateral move or can the NSSF also submit something to rebut her MTD?
Click to expand...
NSSF can file an opposition.

Did she just open herself to legally justify (perhaps during discovery) the rational that the same caliber of cartridge is more lethal because it is fired out of an AR instead of a Mini 14? That is the crux of the issue here and why one firearm is banned and another is not.
Click to expand...
The trick is getting to trial. If we had been allowed a trial in Draper V. Coakley, we could have had a witness demonstrate (s)he could tell loaded vs. unloaded visually or tactically. Half of lawyering is procedural moves to convince the court the other side cannot present its evidence, offer testimony, etc. All it takes for the AG to win is one judge to say "AGs arguments accepted as fact, plaintiffs arguments summarily rejected" and the NSSF will not even be able to present that argument. (Like when the firearms expert Souter determined the effeciveness of Glocks loaded chamber indicator by looking at a diagram).
 
Mass-diver said:
Great news. I wonder why some of the other dealers decided not to join?
Click to expand...

I think this was discussed before. Don't need to many just enough. What the other shops should or could be doing is adding finacial support for the legal fees.
I don't have a link but somewhere someone explained why they didn't need every shop.
 
The MTD is pretty much claiming "states rights". According to AG Healey, it's none of the federal court's business if she wants to infringe on your civil rights. I wonder how she'd feel about other states infringing on civil rights that she cares about?
 
My question is. Was the MTD something that was expected by the people representing our side? Just curious if this is a surprise? Or something we were prepared for?
 
Then of course there is the matter of her writing law, which as far as I know she doesn't have the authority to do regardless of it's gun related or not.
Then there's the little matter of ex post facto as well.
 
Beardy 508 said:
My question is. Was the MTD something that was expected by the people representing our side? Just curious if this is a surprise? Or something we were prepared for?
Click to expand...
I have not spoken to the NSSF counsel, but if they did not expect for it, they don't know what they are doing. And, from what I hear, the counsel they have retained is highly competent.
 
This;

"For example, as the Attorney General has made clear, “the 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"

Should estop the AG from taking any action against sales of firearms on the roster. Period.
 
MTD standard practice. Appealable if the court is crazy enough to grant, which is always possible in MA for a 2A claim.
 
Beardy 508 said:
My question is. Was the MTD something that was expected by the people representing our side? Just curious if this is a surprise? Or something we were prepared for?
Click to expand...

I was expecting it, along with the claim explosion where she took the original 2 claims, made 5 out of them complete with self-serving strawmen and then argued a 2A claim against herself when NSSF never made such a 2A claim. You know how GOAL keeps saying there are other cases coming? Well, a hurricane is coming on this (we are all working on it) and few other issues. The statist bigot won't know what end is up.

- - - Updated - - -

LittleCalm said:
MTD standard practice. Appealable if the court is crazy enough to grant, which is always possible in MA for a 2A claim.
Click to expand...


It's almost guaranteed.
 
terraformer said:
You know how GOAL keeps saying there are other cases coming? Well, a hurricane is coming on this (we are all working on it) and few other issues. The statist bigot won't know what end is up.
Click to expand...

[bow] Thank you, you are the bringer of joyous Thanksgiving tidings, we owe you a plate of turkey and the beverage of your choice. [bow]
 
terraformer said:
I was expecting it, along with the claim explosion where she took the original 2 claims, made 5 out of them complete with self-serving strawmen and then argued a 2A claim against herself when NSSF never made such a 2A claim. You know how GOAL keeps saying there are other cases coming? Well, a hurricane is coming on this (we are all working on it) and few other issues. The statist bigot won't know what end is up.

- - - Updated - - -




It's almost guaranteed.
Click to expand...

74cab6.jpg
 
All of you who have been contributing to Comm2A are responsible for the wind velocity of the hurricane.

I'm hoping for Category 5.
 
Last edited:
Let's be clear here guys. MGL Section 121 reads :

''Assault weapon'', shall have the same meaning as a semiautomatic assault weapon as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994, and shall include, but not be limited to, any of the weapons, or copies or duplicates of the weapons, of any caliber, known as: (i) Avtomat Kalashnikov (AK) (all models); (ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil; (iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC?70); (iv) Colt AR?15;......

So please stop saying that it appears nowhere and she made it up on July 20th.

If you can post to NES you can google "MA Firearms Law" and read it.
 
spt_1955 said:
Let's be clear here guys. MGL Section 121 reads :

''Assault weapon'', shall have the same meaning as a semiautomatic assault weapon as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994, and shall include, but not be limited to, any of the weapons, or copies or duplicates of the weapons, of any caliber, known as: (i) Avtomat Kalashnikov (AK) (all models); (ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil; (iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC?70); (iv) Colt AR?15;......

So please stop saying that it appears nowhere and she made it up on July 20th.

If you can post to NES you can google "MA Firearms Law" and read it.
Click to expand...


So let's be clear here: The Congressional notes pertaining to the crafting of that language were submitted as exhibits to the lawsuit. Did you read any of that? Do you even know what this phrase means? It is quite clear from your post that you do not and have not.
 
spt_1955 said:
Let's be clear here guys. MGL Section 121 reads :

''Assault weapon'', shall have the same meaning as a semiautomatic assault weapon as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994, and shall include, but not be limited to, any of the weapons, or copies or duplicates of the weapons, of any caliber, known as: (i) Avtomat Kalashnikov (AK) (all models); (ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil; (iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC?70); (iv) Colt AR?15;......

So please stop saying that it appears nowhere and she made it up on July 20th.

If you can post to NES you can google "MA Firearms Law" and read it.
Click to expand...
I'm not understanding. Was this in response to a particular post? Maura *did* make up a brand spanking new definition/interpretation of "copies or duplicates" on July 20, 2016, throwing out 20+ years of clear understanding about what was or was not a "copy or duplicate" in accordance with Federal and (later) Massachusetts state law. She even invented a whole new criteria out of thin air to support her brand new definition/interpretation. What's the point that I'm missing here? [thinking]
 
EJFudd said:
I'm not understanding. Was this in response to a particular post? Maura *did* make up a brand spanking new definition/interpretation of "copies or duplicates" on July 20, 2016, throwing out 20+ years of clear understanding about what was or was not a "copy or duplicate" in accordance with Federal and (later) Massachusetts state law. She even invented a whole new criteria out of thin air to support her brand new definition/interpretation. What's the point that I'm missing here? [thinking]
Click to expand...


The point is, someone missed something, it just wasn't you. Apparently SPT is either new to Mass, or has not been a gun owner long, or needs to swap names with you. Perhaps Fudd would be better suited for him.
 
Last edited:
spt_1955 said:
Let's be clear here guys. MGL Section 121 reads :

''Assault weapon'', shall have the same meaning as a semiautomatic assault weapon as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994, and shall include, but not be limited to, any of the weapons, or copies or duplicates of the weapons, of any caliber, known as: (i) Avtomat Kalashnikov (AK) (all models); (ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil; (iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC?70); (iv) Colt AR?15;......

So please stop saying that it appears nowhere and she made it up on July 20th.

If you can post to NES you can google "MA Firearms Law" and read it.
Click to expand...

If you read the rest of Section 121, it includes the "Features Test" to define an Assault Weapon:


Section 121 incorporates by reference the definition of “semiautomatic assault weapon” in the former federal assault weapons ban. This establishes that in Massachusetts weapons with the following characteristics are also within the definition of Assault weapon:218 U.S.C. section 921(a) (30) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994:
B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of—

  1. a folding or telescoping stock;
  2. a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
  3. a bayonet mount;
  4. a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
  5. a grenade launcher;
Click to expand...



Therefore, the AG did make new law or reinterpreted the law incorrectly because the Features Test clearly outlines what is an AW, so her BS on the features test is just that, BS!
 
spt_1955 said:
Let's be clear here guys. MGL Section 121 reads :

''Assault weapon'', shall have the same meaning as a semiautomatic assault weapon as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994, and shall include, but not be limited to, any of the weapons, or copies or duplicates of the weapons, of any caliber, known as: (i) Avtomat Kalashnikov (AK) (all models); (ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil; (iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC?70); (iv) Colt AR?15;......

So please stop saying that it appears nowhere and she made it up on July 20th.

If you can post to NES you can google "MA Firearms Law" and read it.
Click to expand...


You do understand that all the issues she has raised in her interpretation (copy cats etc) were dealt with by the BAFT at the time of the federal ban

Our AG claims the BAFT, and every other expert in the country, were wrong and she is correct.
 
EJFudd said:
I'm not understanding. Was this in response to a particular post? Maura *did* make up a brand spanking new definition/interpretation of "copies or duplicates" on July 20, 2016, throwing out 20+ years of clear understanding about what was or was not a "copy or duplicate" in accordance with Federal and (later) Massachusetts state law. She even invented a whole new criteria out of thin air to support her brand new definition/interpretation. What's the point that I'm missing here? [thinking]
Click to expand...

Your observation is almost 100% correct but you are missing spt_1955's point.

Everyone needs to look at this objectively and realize Healey is not an idiot. The wording in the law and how the law has been interpreted and enforced to date are two different things.

The law briefly says:

(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates...

(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a
detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--... (The evil features etc )

Section A doesn't actually say copies or duplicates "as defined in section B". Instead Section B is just a separate section defining an AW and it doesn't matter whether there is an "and" or "or" between these two sections in the law. This is the crux of Healey's argument.
 

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