... If a gun friendly MA AG ever tried this the legislature would strip that office of any real power until the next AG took over.
Wait, they can DO that? Then why haven't they done it yet? Oh yeah, they are on the same team.
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
... If a gun friendly MA AG ever tried this the legislature would strip that office of any real power until the next AG took over.
Neither did I! So there is a tiny grain of hope after all.Didn't know the odds were that high!
If a gun friendly MA AG ever tried this the legislature would strip that office of any real power until the next AG took over.
If I'm able to wrap my brain around this proper, the state is trying to get the Eleventh Amendment challenge dismissed because she was acting within her bounds?The Commonwealth's brief was filed yesterday: Dropbox - Pullman - Healey Brief.pdf
If I'm able to wrap my brain around this proper, the state is trying to get the Eleventh Amendment challenge dismissed because she was acting within her bounds?
Scum like her believe they're above the law and unfortunately they get away with what they violate and so in reality they are, at least most of the time.She's trying to get the case dismissed by raising the 11th amendment as a defense. She's claiming federal courts have no jurisdiction because it's a matter of state law and that makes her immune from federal lawsuits.
I'm still trying to wrap my own brain around this bullshit.
Healey is a far left radical Progressive who believes her cause is just and WE are misguided white gun toting racists. Her homosexuality has contributed to her beliefs the country is racist and bigoted and she, like her idol Barack Hussein Obama, are enlightened liberals who must destroy all remnants of old school White AmericaScum like her believe they're above the law and unfortunately they get away with what they violate and so in reality they are, at least most of the time.
Yes, they definitely do believe they are enlightened when in reality they're just light in the head.Healey is a far left radical Progressive who believes her cause is just and WE are misguided white gun toting racists. Her homosexuality has contributed to her beliefs the country is racist and bigoted and she, like her idol Barack Hussein Obama, are enlightened liberals who must destroy all remnants of old school White America
I believe the best way to describe it is, it's a political maneuver without legal merit. The goal is to delay the trial until after the election. And to cross their fingers and hope they can pull judges for the panel that care more about banning guns than about upholding the law.If I'm able to wrap my brain around this proper, the state is trying to get the Eleventh Amendment challenge dismissed because she was acting within her bounds?
In Heller, the Supreme Court held that handguns—the vast majority of which today are semi-automatic—are constitutionally protected because they have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens. There is no meaningful or persuasive constitutional distinction between semi-automatic handguns and semi-automatic rifles. Semi-automatic rifles, like semi-automatic handguns, have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens for self-defense in the home, hunting, and other lawful uses. Moreover, semi-automatic handguns are used in connection with violent crimes far more than semi-automatic rifles are. It follows from Heller's protection of semi-automatic handguns that semi-automatic rifles are also constitutionally protected and that D.C.'s ban on them is unconstitutional. (By contrast, fully automatic weapons, also known as machine guns, have traditionally been banned and may continue to be banned after Heller.)
Yeah well this would still be an issue I'd like to see rectified.Looking forward to the possibility that Maura's delay tactics cue up the MA AWB as the first to reach the Supreme Court with Justice Kavanaugh. From Kavanaugh's dissent in the D.C. Circuit case Heller II:
(By contrast, fully automatic weapons, also known as machine guns, have traditionally been banned and may continue to be banned after Heller.)
Yup, see newly appointed Judge Kavanaugh. Maura is crying in her organic cheerios this morning.Long, Long way to go before this would get to SCOTUS.
Moreover, If it was looking like the SCOTUS would rule against the AG, i could absolutely see her withdrawing or otherwise altering her "notice" just to kill the case off. (i believe there is a legal term for that - but it escapes me at the moment)
Did anyone manage to catch this gem from the settlement of Defense Distributed et al vs Department of State:
"... the government expressly acknowledges that non-automatic firearms up to .50-caliber – including modern semi-auto sporting rifles such as the popular AR-15 and similar firearms – are not inherently military."
I found that interesting. Maybe it's ammo to use in another case like this one?
I believe the settlement is ultimately filed with the court, and has the same effect as a federal District Court decision. It is binding on the parties to the settlement, but it is not precedential. Only a Supreme Court decision would be binding nationwide precedent.Does a "settlement" have any of the same power as a decision?
I can imagine that a settlement wouldn't count as precedent because it happens "outside" the courtroom.
Assuming, of course, that English definitions have any meaning at all anymore in law.
The opponent would feature this in attack ads and be assured of a win in MA.That is why someone that runs for AG, and touts how quickly they will withdraw the firearm related 93A stuff
That is why someone that runs for AG, and touts how quickly they will withdraw the firearm related 93A stuff, wil result in the legislature acting as fast as they did with bump stocks to make sure the former "standards" are codified, thus nullifying the new AG. We really need someone to run as an R, who glorifies all the stuff the D AGs push, gets into office, and slowly and quietly does the total opposite. Basically the reverse of a rhino. Bonus points for the person being a D to start.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
This appeal should be dismissed, as the only presently appealable issue is
one the District Court did not reach: whether the Complaint raises state law claims
for which the Eleventh Amendment immunizes the Attorney General.
Why does the first paragraph of the summary of the argument read:
you’re spot onI think because we're currently arguing against Maura's appeal of the court's decision not to grant her motion to dismiss? I might have that confused though.