Someone has to be first... getting the AWB overturned...

[nordic alien]

It might take a a pro-2A, elderly single person with no kids (not joking), and a clean record. Someone with pretty much literally nothing to lose and/or content with their life. Have them deliberately and demonstrably break it, while committing no other crimes.

i am a senior and at this age don't give a f*** and don't mess with me. what are they going to do; put me in jail. then they have to pay for everything

 

[daekken]

i am a senior and at this age don't give a f*** and don't mess with me. what are they going to do; put me in jail. then they have to pay for everything

That was the gist of my post. Find a morally upstanding senior who wouldn't mind risking jail/fine/revocation of LTC in order to be the sacrificial lamb for a test case.

I don't suspect anyone except for perhaps an absolute loner with a very short life expectancy or someone with an incredible set of gonads and/or 2A fervor to volunteer for the task.

Of course there's always the other route of a court case leaving everyone worse off than before. Sort of like the inverse of that case against Lucky Gunner or whoever where they ruled the anti-gunners actually had to pay out instead of getting their hoped for victory. Court says "AWB is A-OK!" Then it would be brace for impact time. It's defeatist but at least right now some of the serfs still have some wiggle room.

 

[swatgig]

So here is my question. If you are an otherwise law abiding citizen. You don't clear leather, you don't give cause for your home to be searched. Your ONLY crime, is violating the state AWB through simple possession, do you think there is light at the end of that tunnel?

See COMMONWEALTH v. CASSIDY, 479 Mass. 527 (2018)

CASSIDY, COMMONWEALTH vs., 479 Mass. 527

During a search of the defendant's apartment pursuant to a search warrant, police officers located the two pistols, four high capacity magazines, several boxes of ammunition, and a bag containing loose rounds of various types of ammunition in the defendant's bedroom. He was charged with unlawful possession of these items. The defendant did not dispute that the weapons were his or that they were operable firearms; in a recorded interview, portions of which were read to the jury, he told an investigating officer that he had legally purchased the weapons in Texas and had brought them with him when he moved to Massachusetts. The defendant also testified similarly at trial. A Superior Court jury convicted the defendant of unlawful possession of an assault weapon, G. L. c. 140, § 131M; unlawful possession of four large capacity feeding devices, G. L. c. 269, § 10 (m); unlawful possession of a large capacity firearm, G. L. c. 269, § 10 (m); and unlawful possession of ammunition, G. L. c. 269, § 10 (h).

He was somewhat law abiding, the police caught wind of the fact that he had guns. They got a search warrant, and sent him to jail for a couple of years.

Isn't the constitution supposed to supersede state law?

See my tagline for how the state interprets the Second Amendment

 

[wahsben]

They wouldn't stick. See Brandenburg vs. Ohio.

If people get trampled and die running from the theater a judge and jury sure may try to make it stick but my point was that the right of freedom of speech is not restricted when you enter a theater only that if you misuse it might you face penalties. Unfortunately the so called justice system is corrupted so you never can be sure exactly what the outcome of a case may be.

 

[Atlantis]

Court says "AWB is A-OK!" Then it would be brace for impact time. It's defeatist but at least right now some of the serfs still have some wiggle room.

I do not take what WOULD come next lightly. But at the end of the day... The 2A exists for some very explicit reasons... Id rather try and take the high road than the hard road first though.

See COMMONWEALTH v. CASSIDY, 479 Mass. 527 (2018)
He was somewhat law abiding, the police caught wind of the fact that he had guns. They got a search warrant, and sent him to jail for a couple of years.
See my tagline for how the state interprets the Second Amendment

Did he in any way attempt to do more than just "get off" on his own charges? Was there no possibility of appeal or bigger picture litigation?

 

[jct61765]

You're setting your sights too low. If you're gonna say "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" just go make some lightning links/machine guns and then call the ATF on yourself (please send any/all dogs to a relative first). That way we can get some redress from the courts.

ianal

Someone has to be first.

 

[Glockster30]

In process.
Worman v. Baker - Commonwealth Second Amendment, Inc. (comm2a.org)

Makes sense. Would this have a significantly better chance than something like the Worman V Baker case has?

Either way sounds like the best strategy personally would be to suck it up and just do what I can to support Comm2A. While networking around for a 70 year old patriot with no kids and no priors....

In addition to the case above, there is also the ongoing NSSF vs AGO. Patience is a virtue.

NSSF filed vs AGO!

 

[wahsben]

Someone has to be first.

There was someone several years ago that did go and unfortunately it didn't go well for them. They had manufactured their own machine gun. I'll have to see if I can find the info on them.

 

[jpm]

MA AWB has been here 20 years+, you don't think its been tried yet?

 

[drgrant]

There's already lots of legal garbage in the mill for the AWB stuff, bringing another right now would likely be a well pissing or time wasting exercise at this point.

 

[drgrant]

MA AWB has been here 20 years+, you don't think its been tried yet?

Hasn't really, remember nothing was really viable before Heller/Macdonald.

 

[drgrant]

Makes sense. Would this have a significantly better chance than something like the Worman V Baker case has?

Either way sounds like the best strategy personally would be to suck it up and just do what I can to support Comm2A. While networking around for a 70 year old patriot with no kids and no priors....

It's hard enough to find clean plaintiffs normally let alone one that wants to risk criminal prosecution to prove a point.... and the risk of it just getting punted by the courts is still enormous....

-Mike

 

[Chevy 2 65]

See COMMONWEALTH v. CASSIDY, 479 Mass. 527 (2018)

CASSIDY, COMMONWEALTH vs., 479 Mass. 527



He was somewhat law abiding, the police caught wind of the fact that he had guns. They got a search warrant, and sent him to jail for a couple of years.



See my tagline for how the state interprets the Second Amendment

WOW !! just WOW. Jury fail

 

[citoriguy]

I hope you have really deep pockets or a number of close friends who will help you float the legal bill(s).

 

[drgrant]

WOW !! just WOW. Jury fail

Does it actually say it was a jury trial? He might have taken his chances with a judge...

-Mike

 

[TomMontana]

I read the OP. Then I think about this skit I recall seeing/hearing (might have been on the radio) back in the 70's. This undercover narcotics cop comes into a HS classroom to "rap" about the drug problem. They are all sitting in a circle.

"So, anyone use drugs before?"

Haha. OP seems legit.

 

[nstassel]

There was someone several years ago that did go and unfortunately it didn't go well for them. They had manufactured their own machine gun. I'll have to see if I can find the info on them.

Unlawful possession of a machine gun is a life felony. AWB violation is a $1000-10000 fine. Big difference

 

[wahsben]

Unlawful possession of a machine gun is a life felony. AWB violation is a $1000-10000 fine. Big difference

I was responding to jct61765 who had responded to daekken who had said: You're setting your sights too low. If you're gonna say "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" just go make some lightning links/machine guns and then call the ATF on yourself (please send any/all dogs to a relative first). That way we can get some redress from the courts.
That's why I mentioned machine guns. This wasn't in Ma. if I remember correctly but somewhere down south I believe.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

See COMMONWEALTH v. CASSIDY, 479 Mass. 527 (2018)

CASSIDY, COMMONWEALTH vs., 479 Mass. 527



He was somewhat law abiding, the police caught wind of the fact that he had guns. They got a search warrant, and sent him to jail for a couple of years.



See my tagline for how the state interprets the Second Amendment

Does it actually say it was a jury trial? He might have taken his chances with a judge...

-Mike

During a search of the defendant's apartment pursuant to a search warrant, police officers located the two pistols, four high capacity magazines, several boxes of ammunition, and a bag containing loose rounds of various types of ammunition in the defendant's bedroom. He was charged with unlawful possession of these items. The defendant did not dispute that the weapons were his or that they were operable firearms; in a recorded interview, portions of which were read to the jury, he told an investigating officer that he had legally purchased the weapons in Texas and had brought them with him when he moved to Massachusetts. The defendant also testified similarly at trial. A Superior Court jury convicted the defendant of unlawful possession of an assault weapon, G. L. c. 140, § 131M; unlawful possession of four large capacity feeding devices, G. L. c. 269, § 10 (m); unlawful possession of a large capacity firearm, G. L. c. 269, § 10 (m); and unlawful possession of ammunition, G. L. c. 269, § 10 (h).

 

[Dadstoys]

You have to understand the process in Ma. perfected by Maura's mentor Martha.
We don't need to get a conviction to reduce your life to a smoking ruin.
We just need to strip you of everything you have , every nickel , your home , your savings and any future income you might make in legal fees trying to stay out of jail.

 

[Devils Paintbrush]

I read the OP. Then I think about this skit I recall seeing/hearing (might have been on the radio) back in the 70's. This undercover narcotics cop comes into a HS classroom to "rap" about the drug problem. They are all sitting in a circle.

"So, anyone use drugs before?"

Lots of confused head-shaking. Feigned innocence, etc.,

"C'mon. This is a judgement free zone. Heroin? Anyone ever use heroin?"

MORE head shaking. Kids looking down. Others looking around like they are in traffic.

"What about cocaine? Anyone ever have cocaine? You'd know it. Again - there is no judgement here. We're trying to help each other make good decisions."

Still nothing.

"What about pot. C'mon. You've got to have tried a little weed. Anyone?"

More head shaking. MORE guilty looks. One girl keeps staring at him. Slowly, her hand goes up barely above her shoulder.

"You. What's your name?"

"Sally."

"You have something for us, Sally? Don't be shy. I'm not going to bite."

"Well, uh," Sally starts. "I've tried pot."

"What have you tried honey?"

"Uh, pot."

"You need to speak up, now."

Sally is getting exasperated. "I TRIED POT!"

Immediately, seven jackbooted thugs rush in, grab Sally and drag her kicking and screaming from the room. Everyone else is frozen in their places. The UC guy is cool and calm.

The JBT's leave, the door slams shut and he looks around.

"Sooo. . . . anyone else?"


I'll refrain from an opinion on this thread. ROFL!!! Not willing to be a test case in any event. And, with many things, how do they know if you're illegal if you aren't committing another crime in the first place???? (Or pulling your weapon in a self defense scenario, but let's assume you aren't pulling your far-too-short, folds into a Ginsu Knife AR Whateveritis down on Main St.)

Another scenario


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLITQXRH70M

 

[enbloc]

I don't mind being First, and I like chocolate cake when you visit...

 

[StevieP]

"... but u can’t yell fire in a movie theater because..."


The allegory here is the anti's will be providing everyone entering the theater a muzzle to make sure you can't yell.

(edit to say wahsben beat me to this, and said it better, but anyway...)

 

[namedpipes]

Great post. Now here’s my 2 cents:

Unfortunately the Constitution does not supersede states rights. Here’s why:
U can say anything u want and petition the Government for grievances but u can’t yell fire in a movie theater because no right is absolute. This is what the anti- gunners are hanging onto in the Heller decision. If only Scalia didn’t say “that no right is absolute” then issue his landmark decision. Hopefully in the next few years this gets to SCOTUS, especially if the Magazine restrictions get there first and get ruled in our favor.

Yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater (assuming there isn't actually a fire) is illegal because you're causing harm to someone. It's perfectly fine otherwise. However, the first amendment IS specifically limited to the Federal government.

Likewise, owning any sort of firearm is perfectly within our rights and THAT amendment is NOT limited to the Federal government. Simply read the text of the two and the difference jumps out at you.

Owning/carrying/bearing a firearm is lawful. Using it to shoot someone that doesn't need shooting, though. That's illegal.

In other words, it isn't the act of exercising a right that is the problem, it's the commission of crime that is only superficially related to the right.

He shouted FIRE causing mass panic, so therefore that's a limitation we place on 1A. No. He committed a crime: disturbing the peace/inciting a riot or something.

He shot a clerk dead while robbing the gas station, so therefore we limit the 2A. No. He committed a crime: murder and robbery.

 

[SgtHal75]

Yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater (assuming there isn't actually a fire) is illegal because you're causing harm to someone. It's perfectly fine otherwise. However, the first amendment IS specifically limited to the Federal government.

Likewise, owning any sort of firearm is perfectly within our rights and THAT amendment is NOT limited to the Federal government. Simply read the text of the two and the difference jumps out at you.

Owning/carrying/bearing a firearm is lawful. Using it to shoot someone that doesn't need shooting, though. That's illegal.

In other words, it isn't the act of exercising a right that is the problem, it's the commission of crime that is superficially related to the right.

He shouted FIRE causing mass panic, so therefore that's a limitation we place on 1A. No. He committed a crime: disturbing the peace/inciting a riot or something.

He shot a clerk dead while robbing the gas station, so therefore we limit the 2A. No. He committed a crime: murder and robbery.

Read Scalia’s comment on the Heller decision. No right is absolute. You can come up with all the examples that you want, unfortunately there are limitations to all rights. The first amendment alone has five of them. The state of Massachusetts isn’t Denying our Second Amendment rights by having an assault weapons ban. It’s a simple “no right is absolute” and can have limitations. That is why at least in this state the assault weapons ban will not be overturned, hopefully something will be done federally.

 

[drgrant]

Read Scalia’s comment on the Heller decision. No right is absolute. You can come up with all the examples that you want, unfortunately there are limitations to all rights. The first amendment alone has five of them. The state of Massachusetts isn’t Denying our Second Amendment rights by having an assault weapons ban. It’s a simple “no right is absolute” and can have limitations. That is why at least in this state the assault weapons ban will not be overturned, hopefully something will be done federally.

Except that the limitations on 1A are not really infringing WRT the intent of the right. An AWB on the other hand bans mere possession of guns that are in common use.... that's a pretty HUGE infringement. This isn't like having a law that says you can't fire a gun in the air downtown or something. Or a law that bans citizens from possessing nuclear weapons.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

AWB is bogus because its based on all made up terms and BS. It's based on personal thoughts and agendas not on facts or public safety that left keeps pushing
It's also a violation of the constitution because of 4 words. I don't need or want their type of public safety. Public safety is not want they are pushing.

 

[namedpipes]

Read Scalia’s comment on the Heller decision. No right is absolute. You can come up with all the examples that you want, unfortunately there are limitations to all rights. The first amendment alone has five of them. The state of Massachusetts isn’t Denying our Second Amendment rights by having an assault weapons ban. It’s a simple “no right is absolute” and can have limitations. That is why at least in this state the assault weapons ban will not be overturned, hopefully something will be done federally.

Your attitude is why that is the de facto state of affairs.

NO. The Second Amendment is NOT limited. The only way such a right can be stripped is through due process. Have you been duly processed with regard to your right to bear arms? I haven't.

With all due respect to Scalia, he was wrong. What you DO with those rights might be in question, but not their existence.

 

[SgtHal75]

Except that the limitations on 1A are not really infringing WRT the intent of the right. An AWB on the other hand bans mere possession of guns that are in common use.... that's a pretty HUGE infringement. This isn't like having a law that says you can't fire a gun in the air downtown or something. Or a law that bans citizens from possessing nuclear weapons.

Agreed. Thank god we have Heller but I just wish Scalia kept that stupid phrase to himself. Hopefully we get some relief soon with Maura’s crap getting nullified actually in court and something can happen federally with states that have AWB’s.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

Your attitude is why that is the de facto state of affairs.

NO. The Second Amendment is NOT limited. The only way such a right can be stripped is through due process. Have you been duly processed with regard to your right to bear arms? I haven't.

With all due respect to Scalia, he was wrong. What you DO with those rights might be in question, but not their existence.

This is the fail "No right is absolute." No respect for that comment !