Worman v. Baker (MA AWB) Oral Arguments 1-9-2019

Comm2A

Director Comm2a
Dealer
NES Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
168
Likes
1,256
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
This has been mentioned elsewhere, but given the topic, it deserves a thread of it's own. This is facial legal challenge to the Commonwealth's ban on so-called 'assault weapons'.

Worman v. Baker is a Comm2A/NRA collaboration and GOAL is an organizational plaintiff.

There won't be a trial until about May 2018. In the meantime the AG has filed a partial MTD with a hearing scheduled for September.
 
You say that like it matters... When the judges are this dishonest and won't even play by their own rules, and worse, play Calvin ball, it's irrelevant about the legal team.

Then there should be no issue with the chowder head from Texas or the idea that has been floated here and other places to flood the AG with thousands of lawsuits.

If the judges are corrupt (and I DO agree that they are, by the way) then it just doesn't matter. Any legal challenge is as good as the next.

DoI Paragraph 2, line 3 applies.
 
Love it.


It's been a year. I'm out of state again.
I'm VERY tempted to ask our savior on her Twitter if she plans to infringe on any more of my rights without warning while I'm trying to relax...

See if one of her minions replies. Then trollololol all the live long day.
[laugh]
 
Now that Judge Clarence Thomas publicly voiced his concern about the SC and gun rights issues, I'm a bit more optimistic about the outcome if this issue is sent to the SCOTUS. Nothing surprises me anymore but it's better to have hope than to have none.
 
You say that like it matters... When the judges are this dishonest and won't even play by their own rules, and worse, play Calvin ball, it's irrelevant about the legal team.

You want someone who can argue the Law effectively and 'make a solid case', not some fresh-out from Dickinson Law trying his first case. I expect a serious effort to be made that goes through the appeals process smoothly so that this issue can reach SCOTUS, where I believe we will win.
 
You want someone who can argue the Law effectively and 'make a solid case', not some fresh-out from Dickinson Law trying his first case. I expect a serious effort to be made that goes through the appeals process smoothly so that this issue can reach SCOTUS, where I believe we will win.
We have a 'grown up' lawyer on this one.
 
Even if Mary Bonato was arguing this case, I doubt it would get much consideration in this state.
I'm not an expert on the judicial system, but who (govt official) determines whether a case is worth pursuing or not? If it doesn't fit their agenda, can they consistently push it aside?
 
I'm not an expert on the judicial system, but who (govt official) determines whether a case is worth pursuing or not? If it doesn't fit their agenda, can they consistently push it aside?

The judges will rule on the cases, or dismiss on motions, using legal argument as a means of justifying their decisions, not as a means of arriving at them.
 
The risk is to this case is that is it overly broad. There have been numerous federal court challenges to state level AWBs and every one, without exception, has lost. What we really needed is a challenge that ONLY addresses the AG's attempt to redefine settled law. That being said, this is a big league case and Comm2A is not the sole driver of the bus.
 
The risk is to this case is that is it overly broad. There have been numerous federal court challenges to state level AWBs and every one, without exception, has lost. What we really needed is a challenge that ONLY addresses the AG's attempt to redefine settled law. That being said, this is a big league case and Comm2A is not the sole driver of the bus.


It was my understanding that the NSSF case is the narrow challenge to the AG interpretation?
 
The NSSF chose not to partner with, consult, or advise Comm2A on any aspect of its litigation.

And this right here should be concerning to folks. You would think the NSSF would have at least wanted to talk with the #1 2A group in MA before filing a lawsuit connected to the 2A in MA
 
And this right here should be concerning to folks. You would think the NSSF would have at least wanted to talk with the #1 2A group in MA before filing a lawsuit connected to the 2A in MA
There was a meeting off all involved parties at S&W. The meeting concluded with a gentlemen's agreement that no party would file a suit without the courtesy of an advance briefing of all other parties in the room. Comm2A subsequently found out about the NSSF suit through the media, not direct notification from NSSF.

Remember too that the NSSF was spouting nonsense about LTCs not being renewed if someone owned an AR. Naturally, the NSSF never thought to ask the subject matter experts if this was really happening.
 
There was a meeting off all involved parties at S&W. The meeting concluded with a gentlemen's agreement that no party would file a suit without the courtesy of an advance briefing of all other parties in the room. Comm2A subsequently found out about the NSSF suit through the media, not direct notification from NSSF.

Remember too that the NSSF was spouting nonsense about LTCs not being renewed if someone owned an AR. Naturally, the NSSF never thought to ask the subject matter experts if this was really happening.

Sigh, well, that doesn't bode well
 
What's the chances that Charlie boy's depth of involvement with Maura's little shit show might be brought to light?
If so , hopefully before the elections.
 
What's the chances that Charlie boy's depth of involvement with Maura's little shit show might be brought to light?
If so , hopefully before the elections.
If the media discovers that Charline was complicit in a gun ban and covers that news it will increase his chances of re-election.
 
Back
Top Bottom