Why No Massachusetts Assault Weapon Court Action - Yet

[SFC13557]

From today's GOAL Email.

"Gun Owners’ Action League (GOAL) has received many inquiries as to potential court action regarding the so-called assault weapons/magazine ban in Massachusetts. This is especially important after Maura Healey’s notorious reinvention of the laws in 2016. The general eagerness for new action comes in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision regarding NYSRPA v. Bruen.

Many GOAL members and non-members are aware that GOAL was a plaintiff in the Worman v. Healey case filed soon after Healey’s unilateral reinterpretation of the law. With great legal and financial assistance from the National Rifle Association (NRA), we spent three years in an effort to bring our complaint to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). Along the way, each federal court supported the new ban. Eventually, SCOTUS declined to hear the case. This is an expensive problem when trying to get a case before the highest court, as they can simply decline to hear arguments.

With a new high court, there is more hope for our Second Amendment civil rights being recognized. We saw this in the groundbreaking Bruen case brought by the New York Rifle and Pistol Association with the backing of the NRA.

Shortly after releasing that decision in favor of our civil rights, the Court also ordered three cases dealing with assault weapons/magazines back to lower federal courts. The orders were to rehear the cases under the rules set forth by Bruen. Cases that GOAL has financially supported.

These cases are already in the “pipeline” and far along in the legal process. GOAL feels the most prudent and fiscally responsible action is to continue to support these cases the best we can. Before we use member money to launch another costly legal challenge, we first want to know how these cases are going to be handled. It may be that if they get back up to SCOTUS and the 2A community comes away with a win, we may not have to file any actions. If for some reason they are not successful, we need to clearly understand why. There is still a lot to learn and many different strategies that might have to be developed before spending a great deal of resources.

The short of it is, GOAL would love to hand Healey a defeat as she enters the corner office. However, it is a more fiscally responsible strategy to learn the disposition of these three cases prior to launching any new challenges. We also do not want any additional legal precedence in a court action loss. Such losses only build bigger walls for future challenges, something our local courts strive to do."

Current Cases:

Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Bruck- Search

Bianchi v. Frosh- Search

 

[ontrgt808]

Can someone refresh my memory: wasn't there a Mass case the SCOTUS declined to hear? I did try a Google search, but "F" Google. Only found Worman v. Healey and the recent favorable decision on the permit restrictions (Morin v. Lyver).

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Actions need to be specifically targeted and not broad based to have a chance of success in the MA courts of First Circuit.

One historic problem has been attempts at broad-spectrum solutions like filing a pre-Bruen action in a MA court asking the MA AWB be declared unconstitutional. Specific actions have a better chance - for example, the Comm2a non-citizen case focused on Green Card (permanent resident) holders, not all non-citizens. By tailoring the case narrowly we significantly improved the chance for a win. Similarly with the AWB, one action might be challenging the AG's definition of something not a firearms under MA law (stripped AR lower) as a "similar firearm", or the declaration that definition specified in MA law (Federal 1994 ban definition) is not the one to use.

The broader a case is, the more hooks you give an unsympathetic court to hand an adverse decision on.

As proof, I offer the record of Comm2a winning some cases, and working to improve the situation in several towns prior to Bruen (which rendered our successful efforts to allow commoners access to unrestricted LTCs in some towns) no longer relevant. I am not aware of any broad-based "throw the entire new law out" court action that has resulted in the overturning of a MA gun law.

Or as Knuckle Dragger has said, you eat an elephant one bite at a time.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Can someone refresh my memory: wasn't there a Mass case the SCOTUS declined to hear? I did try a Google search, but "F" Google. Only found Worman v. Healey and the recent favorable decision on the permit restrictions (Morin v. Lyver).

Morin v. Lyver is not about permit restrictions, but the MA law some misdemeanors impose a lifetime ban on gun ownership in MA.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

I don't know this sounds kind of weasly to me:

We have to have some other circuit to do the heavy lifting because C1 will thumb their noses at SCOTUS and do whatever they want.

or

We don't want to bring a case because C1 will thumb their nose at SCOTUS and do whatever they want.

Meanwhile Healey can just jump up and down like a giddy kid and ram through anything they want and we're supposed to sit here and take it while we wait for that 'perfect' case to come by. Seems lazy to me and honestly someone's going to need to convince me very carefully to keep dropping money in these orgs.

Maybe if these orgs could I don't talk to people as to what kind of strategy they are laying out I'll go in, but this smacks of defeatism.

 

[EJFudd]

From today's GOAL Email.

"Gun Owners’ Action League (GOAL) has received many inquiries as to potential court action regarding the so-called assault weapons/magazine ban in Massachusetts. This is especially important after Maura Healey’s notorious reinvention of the laws in 2016. The general eagerness for new action comes in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision regarding NYSRPA v. Bruen.

Many GOAL members and non-members are aware that GOAL was a plaintiff in the Worman v. Healey case filed soon after Healey’s unilateral reinterpretation of the law. With great legal and financial assistance from the National Rifle Association (NRA), we spent three years in an effort to bring our complaint to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). Along the way, each federal court supported the new ban. Eventually, SCOTUS declined to hear the case. This is an expensive problem when trying to get a case before the highest court, as they can simply decline to hear arguments.

With a new high court, there is more hope for our Second Amendment civil rights being recognized. We saw this in the groundbreaking Bruen case brought by the New York Rifle and Pistol Association with the backing of the NRA.

Shortly after releasing that decision in favor of our civil rights, the Court also ordered three cases dealing with assault weapons/magazines back to lower federal courts. The orders were to rehear the cases under the rules set forth by Bruen. Cases that GOAL has financially supported.

These cases are already in the “pipeline” and far along in the legal process. GOAL feels the most prudent and fiscally responsible action is to continue to support these cases the best we can. Before we use member money to launch another costly legal challenge, we first want to know how these cases are going to be handled. It may be that if they get back up to SCOTUS and the 2A community comes away with a win, we may not have to file any actions. If for some reason they are not successful, we need to clearly understand why. There is still a lot to learn and many different strategies that might have to be developed before spending a great deal of resources.

The short of it is, GOAL would love to hand Healey a defeat as she enters the corner office. However, it is a more fiscally responsible strategy to learn the disposition of these three cases prior to launching any new challenges. We also do not want any additional legal precedence in a court action loss. Such losses only build bigger walls for future challenges, something our local courts strive to do."

Current Cases:

Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Bruck- Search

Bianchi v. Frosh- Search

The message here may be our reality, but it is soooooo damn frustrating.

 

[Hoover]

I don't know this sounds kind of weasly to me:

We have to have some other circuit to do the heavy lifting because C1 will thumb their noses at SCOTUS and do whatever they want.

or

We don't want to bring a case because C1 will thumb their nose at SCOTUS and do whatever they want.

Meanwhile Healey can just jump up and down like a giddy kid and ram through anything they want and we're supposed to sit here and take it while we wait for that 'perfect' case to come by. Seems lazy to me and honestly someone's going to need to convince me very carefully to keep dropping money in these orgs.

Maybe if these orgs could I don't talk to people as to what kind of strategy they are laying out I'll go in, but this smacks of defeatism.

Cases are VERY expensive and take years. They don’t select just any plaintiffs, they want certain ones. GOAL, Comm2A are not Bloomberg with $70 billion to funnel at lawsuits.

And losing cases will be used by other circuits to justify ruling against 2A groups there.

 

[Hoover]

The message here may be our reality, but it is soooooo damn frustrating.

Be patient. There is a mag limit and AWB case, bianch vs Frosh already in the 4th circuit and before a bush, trump and Obama judge. The panel heard the case a few weeks ago and it sounded very favorable for the 2 a side (I posted the audio of the hearing here). If a case was filed today in Massachusetts district court, it would take 2 years to get to the point bianch vs Frosh is at right now.

If the 2A side wins, Maryland either eats the poop sandwich or tries to appeal to SCOTUS. Either way, SCOTUS would likely be a favorable ruling and affect everyone or the 4th decision will be used by other groups to go after bans in NY, NJ, CT, VT, MA, RI, CA, WA, DE, etc.

 

[JayMcB]

Be patient. There is a mag limit and AWB case, bianch vs Frosh already in the 4th circuit and before a bush, trump and Obama judge. The panel heard the case a few weeks ago and it sounded very favorable for the 2 a side (I posted the audio of the hearing here). If a case was filed today in Massachusetts district court, it would take 2 years to get to the point bianch vs Frosh is at right now.

If the 2A side wins, Maryland either eats the poop sandwich or tries to appeal to SCOTUS. Either way, SCOTUS would likely be a favorable ruling and affect everyone or the 4th decision will be used by other groups to go after bans in NY, NJ, CT, VT, MA, RI, CA, WA, DE, etc.

My understanding is that the complete taking of standard cap mags went into effect in RI literally this week. None grandfathered, just hand them over or sell them out of state..

 

[G4Y4HK]

My understanding is that the complete taking of standard cap mags went into effect in RI literally this week. None grandfathered, just hand them over or sell them out of state..

Damn that's savage. At least CT graciously let you keep them and still carry them just loaded to 10 max as long as you told your state cops your inventory list.

 

[Hoover]

Damn that's savage. At least CT graciously let you keep them and still carry them just loaded to 10 max as long as you told your state cops your inventory list.

California was the first to do away with non cripple mags, no grandfathering. NJ passed a law a few years ago and now RI. I wouldn’t follow that law though, it’s going down.

 

[Picton]

I don't know this sounds kind of weasly to me:

We have to have some other circuit to do the heavy lifting because C1 will thumb their noses at SCOTUS and do whatever they want.

or

We don't want to bring a case because C1 will thumb their nose at SCOTUS and do whatever they want.

Meanwhile Healey can just jump up and down like a giddy kid and ram through anything they want and we're supposed to sit here and take it while we wait for that 'perfect' case to come by. Seems lazy to me and honestly someone's going to need to convince me very carefully to keep dropping money in these orgs.

Maybe if these orgs could I don't talk to people as to what kind of strategy they are laying out I'll go in, but this smacks of defeatism.

It’s not lazy.

A good plaintiff makes good case law. A bad plaintiff moves us backwards, not forwards. This is lawfare, not “justice.”

 

[cstockwell]

It’s not lazy.

A good plaintiff makes good case law. A bad plaintiff moves us backwards, not forwards. This is lawfare, not “justice.”

We understand what you and hoover are saying about HOW the law plays out and what are the best cases and takes years to go through the system...blah blah blah. But it only takes a few strokes of the pen and a month or two for them to screw us with new BS laws or edicts that they know may be unconstitutional but they don't care. By the time it can be "fixed" so many people lost money and rights already or else are felons. It isn't too much different from a video I recently watched from Lehto's Law about a Federal issue vs some local home owners with an easement. I am sure there is lots more to the story but the agent when visited laughed at the guy and said well sue us then. They all know we are up against unlimited amounts of funds (our money) and resources and we have to fight them. So it is a losing battle for us peasants no matter if we win in the "long game" or not

 

[Hoover]

We understand what you and hoover are saying about HOW the law plays out and what are the best cases and takes years to go through the system...blah blah blah. But it only takes a few strokes of the pen and a month or two for them to screw us with new BS laws or edicts that they know may be unconstitutional but they don't care. By the time it can be "fixed" so many people lost money and rights already or else are felons. It isn't too much different from a video I recently watched from Lehto's Law about a Federal issue vs some local home owners with an easement. I am sure there is lots more to the story but the agent when visited laughed at the guy and said well sue us then. They all know we are up against unlimited amounts of funds (our money) and resources and we have to fight them. So it is a losing battle for us peasants no matter if we win in the "long game" or not

Post NYSRPA vs bruen is a different environment but there certainly will be some asshats like the judge in RI who used interest balancing which was explicitly not allowed by SCOTUS. It’s going to take about 12-18 months to substantially shake out some issues, specifically mag limits and AWBs along with “sensitive place” restrictions.

Once we get some favorable rulings from the 4th, 9th and others, gun control groups will be on life support. Courts are not quick, give it 12-18 months

 

[Da_lucche]

There are actually people who still give Healey's edict any validation? Lol dafuq?

 

[Chevy 2 65]

GOAL

 

[Chevy 2 65]

It’s not lazy.

A good plaintiff makes good case law. A bad plaintiff moves us backwards, not forwards. This is lawfare, not “justice.”

it is a right not permission. The 2nd is crystal clear ..but here we are

 

[Dadstoys]

Cases are VERY expensive and take years. They don’t select just any plaintiffs, they want certain ones. GOAL, Comm2A are not Bloomberg with $70 billion to funnel at lawsuits.

And losing cases will be used by other circuits to justify ruling against 2A groups there.

As frustrating as it is , the man is right.
You tip toe through a mine field , not break dance.

 

[EJFudd]

... and Lord knows we want a "fiscally responsible" GOAL.

 

[drgrant]

California was the first to do away with non cripple mags, no grandfathering.

Wrong. CA's shit awb allowed people to retain normal magazines they had purchased before 2000.

 

[RKG]

There is wisdom in posts such as those of SFC 13557 and Rob Boudrie: fight battles from the high ground (where you have a chance of winning).

The only pro-gun decision in Massachusetts was that of Doug Woodlock, shooting down King Charles's removal of gun stores and shooting ranges from the list of "critical functions" exempt from the Kung Flu shutdowns. And this decision was not based on Second Amendment grounds, but rather the Commonwealth's inability to articulate any rational way to distinguish guns stores from liquor stores.

So let folks in better venues win a victory or two that, with time, will percolate through the system and eventually benefit those of us who reside in the People's Republic too.

(There is a view, to which I subscribe, that Charlie's anti-gun stance is the reason he will leaving the State House shortly. Certainly the Republican party wasn't going to re-nominate him, nor was there any chance he could change his cape and run as a Democrat. And third-party candidates in Massachusetts almost always end up embarassing themselves, a prospect wholly unacceptable to one of Baker's ego. So Charlie chucked it in.)

 

[HARRYM]

You aren't likely to receive any favorable decisions in MA Courts. You need to push it all the way to SCOTUS.

Now it takes time to get before SCOTUS, and that's even if they take the case.

And SCOTUS wants you to follow procedure first by following appeals up the higher court ladders.

Years.

And that's exactly what the antis know and count on, years of litigation while their bans and restrictions stand in place.

And if the appeal goes against them the antis simply change/tweak the ban/restriction and re-institute it starting the lengthy court process all over again.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

It’s not lazy.

A good plaintiff makes good case law. A bad plaintiff moves us backwards, not forwards. This is lawfare, not “justice.”

Okay so help me out here. The general feeling is that C1 hates 2A and will vote against 2A as almost a given despite all of the rulings from SCOTUS.

a). Wait for a perfect ruling from some other part of the country and press it inside the C1 courts knowing in advance they will rule against us, ignore all precedent and make activist decision.

b). If we bring a valid civil rights claim through the federal courts inside C1 and get all the way to C1, they rule against us and SCOTUS does a hard pass.

How is that any different than today, sitting on our hands and waiting for a rescue from someone? "We're not going to do anything for several years"

What we're doing is letting the opposition keep us off balance all day long. Just when you think 'phew I don't have to hide a 30 rounder in the backyard' Maura and the legislature come up with something new and ram it through, no discussion, no nothing. They are going to continue to peck away until we all just say f** it and move out. They've even said it before "this place is our place and if you don't like it move out". There's no living in peace with that.

If you haven't figured it out with Maura in the governors chair, one more scotus ruling and they are going to want to swing into action.

You can talk about perfect case and perfect circumstances but all I see is an almost silent resignation "Yes I'll turn in all of my guns at the police station tomorrow, sigh".

 

[VetteGirlMA]

You aren't likely to receive any favorable decisions in MA Courts. You need to push it all the way to SCOTUS.

Now it takes time to get before SCOTUS, and that's even if they take the case.

And SCOTUS wants you to follow procedure first by following appeals up the higher court ladders.

Years.

And that's exactly what the antis know and count on, years of litigation while their bans and restrictions stand in place.

And if the appeal goes against them the antis simply change/tweak the ban/restriction and re-institute it starting the lengthy court process all over again.

What is needed is mass civil disobedience. They count on people being docile sheep while they're injecting us all with euthanasia chemicals.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

My understanding is that the complete taking of standard cap mags went into effect in RI literally this week. None grandfathered, just hand them over or sell them out of state..

I think the law went into effect but there is a 180 day deadline for compliance. There was an application for a stay but the judge applied interest balancing and concluded the requirement placed on gun owners was a small burden relative to the importance and benefit of the ban.

 

[drgrant]

What is needed is mass civil disobedience. They count on people being docile sheep while they're injecting us all with euthanasia chemicals.

There are already shitloads of people in mass that openly violate the AWB that doesn't mean that it's really going to change anything...... the Sheep are still going to keep sheeping it up.

CT there are probably thousands with AW and mags, being as they only got a relatively small amount to actually register their s*** it's quite obvious that there were a whole bunch of people who didn't register anything......

 

[Daddy Mac]

All I want for Christmas is a genuine Armalite AR 10. Maura scrooge can suck it.

 

[EJFudd]

I think the law went into effect, but there is a 180 day deadline for compliance.

Which is up tomorrow... a very sad day for dealers and gunowners in Little Rhody.

 

[M1911]

Folks, take a deep breath. Things are finally moving in our direction. Be patient.

 

[Picton]

We understand what you and hoover are saying about HOW the law plays out and what are the best cases and takes years to go through the system...blah blah blah. But it only takes a few strokes of the pen and a month or two for them to screw us with new BS laws or edicts that they know may be unconstitutional but they don't care. By the time it can be "fixed" so many people lost money and rights already or else are felons. It isn't too much different from a video I recently watched from Lehto's Law about a Federal issue vs some local home owners with an easement. I am sure there is lots more to the story but the agent when visited laughed at the guy and said well sue us then. They all know we are up against unlimited amounts of funds (our money) and resources and we have to fight them. So it is a losing battle for us peasants no matter if we win in the "long game" or not

Your option is the same as Gandhi's and King's: disobey. Do it on guns, and you'll certainly win post-Bruen. But it would really help if you're a good plaintiff first.

I'm repeating myself; I know I've cited this in this thread already, and it would be nice if people would read everything. But remember Rosa Parks? She was not the first to ride in the front of the bus, nor the first to get arrested for it; she was simply the one the NAACP chose to hang its hat on, because she was an excellent plaintiff. Previous arrestees had been advised by the NAACP to pay the fine and get on with their lives, because they were not good plaintiffs: the NAACP wanted to make durable case law. They succeeded, even though it took longer. Was every Black person happy with that delay? Of course not; you're in their boat right now. But that doesn't mean the tactic was wrong.

Okay so help me out here. The general feeling is that C1 hates 2A and will vote against 2A as almost a given despite all of the rulings from SCOTUS.

a). Wait for a perfect ruling from some other part of the country and press it inside the C1 courts knowing in advance they will rule against us, ignore all precedent and make activist decision.

b). If we bring a valid civil rights claim through the federal courts inside C1 and get all the way to C1, they rule against us and SCOTUS does a hard pass.

How is that any different than today, sitting on our hands and waiting for a rescue from someone? "We're not going to do anything for several years"

What we're doing is letting the opposition keep us off balance all day long. Just when you think 'phew I don't have to hide a 30 rounder in the backyard' Maura and the legislature come up with something new and ram it through, no discussion, no nothing. They are going to continue to peck away until we all just say f** it and move out. They've even said it before "this place is our place and if you don't like it move out". There's no living in peace with that.

If you haven't figured it out with Maura in the governors chair, one more scotus ruling and they are going to want to swing into action.

You can talk about perfect case and perfect circumstances but all I see is an almost silent resignation "Yes I'll turn in all of my guns at the police station tomorrow, sigh".

C1 cannot ignore a direct SCOTUS reversal. One hopes they realize that. But if you're equating my understanding of lawfare to a belief by me that I'll be turning in my guns, you're putting words in my mouth. And they're entirely the wrong words. They reflect you, not me.

Just watch. Maura will be unable to do much. She is not dumb. She understands what will happen if she tries. You accuse people like me of being naive in relying on the courts, but I'll happily respond by accusing you of being unrealistically panicky by fearing The Dread Pirate Maura. From the sounds of your post, frankly, you're much closer to turning in your guns than I am mine. I am not afraid of her, nor of what she says she wants to do. I've been disobeying unlawful edicts from her for years now; it's liberating. Try it.

Folks, take a deep breath. Things are finally moving in our direction. Be patient.

Indeed.

As I've posted before, this is a civil rights case. School desegregation did not magically happen after Brown v Board; it took another twenty years. Bruen is our Brown v Board. It is clear-cut and inarguable, and yet STILL the courts take time.

Those of you who paid no attention during the civil rights lessons you had in HS? You have a visceral understanding of it now. Brown v Board happened at the START of the Civil Rights struggle, not the end. It's largely because of state foot-dragging in the aftermath of that ruling that things like SNCC, the Black Panthers, and the split between MLK and Malcolm X happened. I'm expecting a similar wide set of responses in the pro-RKBA movement.

Buckle up. This is the beginning of the end, not the end of the end. Hopefully it won't take us twenty years, but it could be worse: we could still be pre-end. So cheer the f*** up.