NSSF filed vs AGO!

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"?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.”​
 
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'?
 
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?
 
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
 
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:
 
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.
 
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.
 
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."
 
I’m looking on bringing in a LRB M1a reciever to a massachusetts FFL. Would I have a problem ?
You need to talk to the specific inbounding dealer there is no Universal guidance on this.... for any dealer that isn't a cuck that should be fine but mass has a lot of wonky dealers..... whatever you do don't bother calling the deli ticket emporium or other box type stores cuz those people are going to say no because they don't even want to think about it.....
 
You need to talk to the specific inbounding dealer there is no Universal guidance on this.... for any dealer that isn't a cuck that should be fine but mass has a lot of wonky dealers..... whatever you do don't bother calling the deli ticket emporium or other box type stores cuz those people are going to say no because they don't even want to think about it.....
Actually, the deli emporium has already thought about it and concluded "not worth the risk".
 
Back
Top Bottom