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

andrew1220

NES Member
Rating - 100%
128   0   0
Joined
Oct 2, 2011
Messages
15,421
Likes
11,157
Location
North Shore
Thought to be a unicorn - but such dealers in MA do exist. Some dealers in MA refuse to recognize the edict being proclaimed from on high - which is not MGL.
In fact some are working with more than just lowers. And no - I will not be elaborating on anything additional about fight club.
True. I’m aware of them but I seriously wonder how much longer they’ll be around for....
 

headednorth

NES Member
Rating - 100%
18   0   0
Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Messages
15,327
Likes
17,757
For protection against this manifestation of Government is why the Founders wanted the People armed, with the kinds of guns said Government would try to take away.
If you think about the true purpose of the 2A, it doenst make any sense for the government to even have any say in the matter. Letting the government dictate what the 2A means or doesnt mean is akin to letting a burglar decide what kind of alarm you can have in your home.
 

StonerAndSullivan

NES Member
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
Joined
Jun 30, 2016
Messages
1,580
Likes
1,310
Location
Masslandia
AR is easier if you start with 80% lower. AK easier if starting from scratch or with shovel. (trying to type with Boris dialect). Not AK fan, but unassembled AK in garage - square blade shovel with rotting handle (stock in bad shape).
If you have basic machine shop (a decent mill and a lathe) you can make an AR. That's part of the genius/intent of the Stoner/Sullivan design. The AK takes no less than full blown communism and state funded forced labor to produce a decent one. [laugh][laugh][laugh]
 

LuvDog

NES Member
Rating - 100%
49   0   0
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
6,441
Likes
4,760
Location
Metrowest
Thought to be a unicorn - but such dealers in MA do exist. Some dealers in MA refuse to recognize the edict being proclaimed from on high - which is not MGL.
In fact some are working with more than just lowers. And no - I will not be elaborating on anything additional about fight club.

If you guys don’t know these dealers, find them and SUPPORT them. Stop doing business with those who bend the knee.

True. I’m aware of them but I seriously wonder how much longer they’ll be around for....

I know it’s fight club rules but if someone wants to message me, then I’d gladly support a good local FFL.
 

Squire

NES Member
Rating - 100%
19   0   0
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
4,859
Likes
2,689
If you think about the true purpose of the 2A, it doenst make any sense for the government to even have any say in the matter. Letting the government dictate what the 2A means or doesnt mean is akin to letting a burglar decide what kind of alarm you can have in your home.
Indeed, "shall not be infringed" doesn't seem to leave much room for interpretation.
 

KBCraig

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
12,734
Likes
8,867
Location
Granite State of Mind
Forgone conclusion. The Judge was clueless about firearms and it was apparent he was anti. It means an appeal and push to higher court. Which would have occurred either way from either side.
He can't even spell the name of "Lawrence (sic) Tribe" correctly, and then misrepresents the very liberal Harvard Law professor, who has long held that 2A is an individual right that cannot be denied absent extraordinary and individualized circumstances.

He not only flipped a bird to the late Justice Scalia, he flipped one to Prof. Laurence Tribe.
 

KBCraig

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
12,734
Likes
8,867
Location
Granite State of Mind
"Great that you're here, officer, cause someone just stole my guns this morning, i was about to call you guys!"
"Of course, officer, I understand that you're only doing your job by coming to collect my guns. They're right here in my safe, and I'm happy to be a good citizen and hand them over."

click-click-click

"HOLY JESUS, I'VE BEEN ROBBED!"
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
74,806
Likes
44,481
If she feels this is just too big of a leap for just her then the Legislature re-writes the law.

Judging by her lack of intestinal fortitude over the last 2.Something years about this, IMHO she's not going to do a damned thing, she's going to ride this grandstanding BS out
as long as she can. It's a political free bingo space for her. And at some point or another when the legislature gets around to launching its next salvo of BS, they will attempt to code some variation of her edict into it, or something worse even.

-Mike
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
37
Likes
51
I forget the case offhand but there was a fairly recent dismissal of a Comm2a court case that was basically predicated on the idea that the plaintiffs weren't the aggrieved party of the case.

I agree with others that because this law has not been enforced (heck I don't even know exactly what the consequences of violation are) this is the foundation of this dismissal as well. The judge did throw in lots of opinion and it's pretty obvious what his view of the case.

I think that because the dismissal has merit (there is no prosecuted party), we need to wait for enforcement for the real show to begin. I'm pretty certain that with lessons learned from the past, Comm2a will be very ready to return to court with a plaintiff in hand. Many of us talk a good talk but I guarantee that I will not surrender a single firearm of mine without a legal battle.

Regretfully, it'll most likely take legal battles of regular citizens like you and me to get this to it's proper destination which is the USSC which will involve lots of painful posturing by Massachusetts Judges along the way. Only at the USSC do I think that Heller will be properly interpreted.
The Second Amendment is a Right, not a privilege. There is no mention of muskets, it is a right to bear arms in the event that the government oversteps their bounds. Common use equals AR type firearms today which in comparison to the government, are still at a major disadvantage in firepower and sophistication.

We must keep our head's up. This is a long game for both the liberals and us...
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
74,806
Likes
44,481
A stripped lower becomes a firearm under MGL one assembled, at which point you have to file an eFA-10. There is, however, no law that states that you cannot give your own model designation to a gun that you "build", so you might want to consider a designation of "ZK1000" (Zombie Killer) rather than "AR15" when filing your eFA10 if you do a from scratch build.

How about "HealySucks 72016"?


My question to those that know better than me:

Generally gun cases in this area are losing propositions it seems. Did we have reasonable assurance we would win, and this is unexpected?

Or,

Did we think it was not a winner, yet, but could be if appealed to a higher court?

I think that question is significant in how we all interpret the results. If the end game was SCOTUS or something else, some of the concern is alleviated because this was roughly the expected outcome.

I don't think anyone had any delusions of grandeur when this case was filed, if that's what you're getting at. I doubt this is the complete end of the line for this case, but
if nothing is ventured, nothing can be gained. Some people acting as though this is huge AG victory, but the reality is its nothing more than a mild reinforcement of the
lame status quo we've been dealing with since 7/20/16....

Part of the problem with most of the Kangaroo courts in this part of the country (some of which are federal, too apparently) is there's no real telling what you're going to
get until you go forward....

-Mike
 

rommel

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 14, 2012
Messages
1,320
Likes
958
I know my saying this may torque a few people in this forum off, but for all the talk about how the Heller ruling supposedly helped us constitutionalists, I'm more and more thinking it really didn't. In particular, Scalia really screwed us with his majority opinion "the right secured by the second amendment is not unlimited" language. I long ago lost count of the number of times the left has repeated this statement in the Heller ruling to justify anti gun legislation.

We continuously shoot ourselves in the ass - pun intended - when we try to argue that semi-auto firearms are ok to own, but machineguns, AT-4s, MK-19s and whatever else are NOT ok to own "because there are already laws against that". These laws are no more constitutional than the ones they're trying to pass now. The fact is that by virtue of being tax-paying citizens of the US we already ARE part owners of those more modern weapon systems in service with the US military. The fact is that whatever to government has in it's inventory, we have a right to. It's ours already. The "security of a free state" demands that the people have the ability to be as well armed as their government. Period.

So yes, the right secured by the second amendment IS unlimited. Scalia was wrong.

I am not versed enough to form my own opinion yet on this. I at one time believed it was in my right to own a nuclear weapon because, well the government owned one so why should I not be able too. Then I posted this a week ago, and the guy made some solid arguments and his logic... was logical. The thread got no replies but he single handedly (at least temporarily) changed my opinion on whether the 2A is unlimited. I still think it is a good read albeit a little long.

The "Assault Weapons Ban", The Second Amendment, And The Security Of A Free State
 

bgoum

NES Member
Rating - 100%
46   0   0
Joined
Aug 6, 2015
Messages
1,092
Likes
631
Location
Salem, NH
Yes serious. After she extends the ban to all possessed “assault weapons” regardless of when acquired you could be breaking the law as soon as that A/R lower is built into a functional rifle whether you choose to FA10 it or not. She re-interpreted the existing law once and won. What’s to stop her from doing it again?

OR

If she feels this is just too big of a leap for just her then the Legislature re-writes the law.

There’s tens of thousands of these rifles in MA. Think she or the worker’s party are OK with that?

They’re going to be emboldened by this decision. I think a full on semi automatic rifle ban is now a real possibility in MA.

Ya perhaps it is a real possibility. Another variable is where I store it - in state or out of state. If I keep in state, well then you can lump me in with all of the other overnight felons.
Either way I am not going to be wringing my hands and crying into my milk over something that has not yet happened and it is not a reality of them going door to door looking for something that someone might one day build into something evil and killy which today is a paper weight. And either way - I will never be turning anything in to the MA gestapo.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jul 1, 2005
Messages
197
Likes
23
Location
somewhere in eastern MA
Only at the USSC do I think that Heller will be properly interpreted.
Good luck with that :(

Since Heller and McDonald SCOTUS has had plenty of chances to set lower courts straight to to specify some standard of scrutiny other than "well, it's not mere rational basis scrutiny". Yet they have gone out of their way to refuse to take any gun cases since those two. Even while Scalia was alive. Very, very frustrating. There should have been some good pro-2A precedents further locking down Heller. Instead we get nothing. And it's only a matter of time before one or both of the geezer duo of Thomas and Kennedy are gone.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
74,806
Likes
44,481
Good luck with that :(

Since Heller and McDonald SCOTUS has had plenty of chances to set lower courts straight to to specify some standard of scrutiny other than "well, it's not mere rational basis scrutiny". Yet they have gone out of their way to refuse to take any gun cases since those two. Even while Scalia was alive. Very, very frustrating. There should have been some good pro-2A precedents further locking down Heller. Instead we get nothing. And it's only a matter of time before one or both of the geezer duo of Thomas and Kennedy are gone.

Part of the problem is the reason most of those cases were probably punted is they weren't designed as well as Heller was. To get an RKBA case to the court, the case must
be precisely engineered from many angles. If there is too much vagueness, the case is too "legally busy" etc, they won't touch it. They didn't even want to touch
Heller, but Alan Gura (and the folks that helped him out along the way) forced their hand...

-Mike
 

banditone

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Dec 10, 2016
Messages
720
Likes
206
Location
North of Boston
So far the AG hasn’t challenged the ammo dealer in CT that still ships to MA. I don’t think she has the guts.
I think the AG will consider it a win as long as LGS are afraid to sell banned items.
 
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
12,172
Likes
3,042
Location
NH
Thing is the judge just created precedent to allow the state to engage in non-statutory (administrative fiat) punishment to create a chilling effect and inflict damages without recourse from the courts.

I saw this posted on a news website in response to this story on the basis of precedent:


This is a legal abomination and that the judiciary and legislature allows it to stand is a testament to the bottom feeding filth they are.

The courts and legislature wrap themselves in the uniforms and trappings of institutions demanding respect while forgetting that the public didn't respect those institutions because of their costumes or edifices, but the ideals said objects were supposed to embody, which these fools have wholeheartedly made a mockery of. They think they deserve respect simply for wearing a costume and taking a title, no differently than a child dressing up like a doctor and expecting everyone to then treat them like a neurosurgeon.

This is because we no longer live in a republic. Judges for decades now, hell maybe even a century, have twisted language in court ruling to get the result they want. The old systems are still there but they are simply ignored and occasionally given lip service to keep the proles in order.

From Garet Garrett:

We have crossed the boundary that lies between Republic and Empire. If you ask when, the answer is that you cannot make a single stroke between day and night. The precise moment does not matter.

The Roman Republic passed into the Roman Empire, and yet never could a Roman citizen have said, “That was yesterday.” Nor is the historian, with all the advantages of perspective, able to place that momentous event at any exact point on the dial of time. The Republic had a long unhappy twilight. It is agreed that the Empire began with Augustus Caesar. Several before him had played emperor and were destroyed.

The first who might have been called emperor in fact was Julius Caesar, who pretended not to want the crown and once publicly declined it. Whether he feared more the displeasure of the Roman populace or the daggers of the republicans is unknown. In his dreams he may have been seeing a bloodstained toga. His murder soon afterward was a desperate act of the dying republican tradition, and perfectly futile. His heir was Octavian, and it was a very bloody business, yet neither did Octavian call himself emperor.

On the contrary, he was most careful to observe the old legal forms. He restored the Senate. Later he made believe to restore the Republic, and caused coins to be struck in commemoration of that event. Having acquired by universal consent, as he afterward wrote, “complete dominion over everything, both by land and sea,” he made a long and artful speech to the Senate, and ended it by saying: “And now I give back the Republic into your keeping. The laws, the troops, the treasury, the provinces, are all restored to you. May you guard them worthily.”

The response of the Senate was to crown him with oak leaves, plant laurel trees at his gate and name him Augustus. After that he reigned for more than forty years and when he died the bones of the Republic were buried with him.

What Augustus Caesar did was to demonstrate a proposition found in Aristotle’s “Politics,” one that he must have known by heart, namely this:

People do not easily change, but love their own ancient customs; and it is by small degrees only that one thing takes the place of another; so that the ancient laws will remain, while the power will be in the hands of those who have brought about a revolution in the state.

Revolution within the form.

This is the Welfare State. It rose suddenly within the form. It is legal because the Supreme Court says it is. The Supreme Court once said no and then changed its mind and said yes, because meanwhile the President who was the architect of the Welfare State had appointed to the Supreme Court bench men who believed in it.

The founders who wrote the Constitution could no more have imagined a Welfare State rising by sanction of its words than they could have imagined a monarchy; and yet the Constitution did not have to be changed. It had only to be reinterpreted in one clause — the clause that reads: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, imposts and excises to pay its debts and provide for common defense and welfare of the United States.”

“We are under a Constitution,” said Chief Justice Hughes, “but the Constitution is what the judges say it is.”

The Constitution says: “The Congress shall have power to declare war.” That, therefore, was the one thing no president could do. By his own will he could not declare war. Only Congress could declare war, and Congress could be trusted never to do it but by will of the people — or so they believed. No man could make it for them. Even if you think that President Roosevelt got the country into World War II, that was not the same thing. For a declaration of war he went to Congress — after the Japanese had attacked Pearl Harbor. He may have wanted it, he may have planned it; and yet the Constitution forbade him to declare war and he dared not do it. Nine years later a much weaker president did.

President Truman, alone and without either the consent or knowledge of Congress, had declared war on the Korean aggressor, 7000 miles away, Congress condoned his usurpation of its exclusive constitutional power. More than that, his political supporters in Congress argued that in the modern case that sentence in the Constitution conferring upon Congress the sole power to declare war was obsolete.

Mark you, the words had not been erased; they still existed in form. Only they had become obsolete. And why obsolete? Because now war may begin suddenly, with bombs falling out of the sky, and we might perish while waiting for Congress to declare war.

The reasoning is puerile. The Korean war, which made the precedent, did not begin that way; secondly, Congress was in session at the time, so that the delay could not have been more than a few hours, provided Congress had been willing to declare war; and, thirdly, the president as commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the Republic may in a legal manner act defensively before a declaration of war has been made. It is bound to be made if the nation has been attacked.

Mr. Truman’s supporters argued that in the Korean instance his act was defensive and therefore within his powers as commander-in-chief. In that case, to make it constitutional, he was legally obliged to ask Congress for a declaration of war afterward. This he never did. For a week Congress relied upon the papers for news of the country’s entry into war; then the president called a few of its leaders to the White House and told them what he had done.

A year later Congress was still debating whether or not the country was at war, in a legal, constitutional sense. A few months later Mr. Truman sent American troops to Europe to join an international army, and did it not only without a law, without even consulting Congress, but challenged the power of Congress to stop him. Congress made all of the necessary sounds of anger and then poulticed its dignity with a resolution saying the president’s action was all right for that one time, since anyhow it had been taken, but that hereafter Congress would expect to be consulted.

The Republic Becomes the Empire - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

The article I linked was published in 1952. Half, maybe even more, of the members on this board were not even born when this article was published. Has anything changed since then? Not really. The constitution is still ignored often and only enough lip service is given to keep people from violently revolting. The US acts more and more like an empire with every passing day. The government continually testing how far it can go. A little more now. No mass revolt? A little more. A small scale revolt? Back off for a little while. We have time. It then continues again until liberty is truly gone and people awaken and realize it is gone but there is now nothing they can do about it.
 

Varmint

NES Member
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
Joined
Jul 5, 2014
Messages
16,943
Likes
9,220
Location
North Shore, MA
Good luck with that :(

Since Heller and McDonald SCOTUS has had plenty of chances to set lower courts straight to to specify some standard of scrutiny other than "well, it's not mere rational basis scrutiny". Yet they have gone out of their way to refuse to take any gun cases since those two. Even while Scalia was alive. Very, very frustrating. There should have been some good pro-2A precedents further locking down Heller. Instead we get nothing. And it's only a matter of time before one or both of the geezer duo of Thomas and Kennedy are gone.

Simple reason for that, both sides are afraid of losing. They won't take any 2A cases until one side has a strong majority.
 

Rob Boudrie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
38,412
Likes
17,046
It takes 4 SCOTUS judges to hear a case; 5 to win.

It is not uncommon for judges to would like a case heard to vote against doing so because they know the current makeup of the court would result in a decision they do not like. A key is timing submissions such that 4 justices think that we will win and want it to happen.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
74,806
Likes
44,481
Want to bet Bloomie & Co. try to "do something about" Alan Gura? I wouldn't put anything past them given how crooked EVERYTHING and EVERYONE seems to be lately. =(

IMO these people are crooked, but they haven't quite risen to say, the level of Shitlery Clinton yet... antis are still amateur hour compared to that c***. I wouldn't put such tactics off the table for the antis though as a generality, particularly if one of them got caught with their pants down. Problem is they seem to enjoy a level of "immunity by extension" from prosecution for any wrongdoing. We thought qualified immunity of the cops was bad, it looks like the media, and the system as a whole, has had a long tradition of extending that onto anti gunners.

I also think that shitberg et al have upped their game- my running theory is that they've employed a bunch of people to run operations below them, but not necessarily
public facing- these aren't people like shannon twatts, etc.. these are stringpullers behind the scenes, I think that shitberg and some of these other financiers of this
stuff unfortunately (for us) figured out that they're too f***ing stupid to mastermind some of this stuff purely on their own... so they probably reached out and got some talent to work for them. It would be useful to us if we could expose these people. I -know- they exist. I just don't know who they are. I know this because about 10 or so years ago I had dinner with some industry people, and one of them who was intimately familiar with RKBA issues in CA told me that people like Swinestine actually had a paid staffer whose whole job basically was to write up or source anti legislation. That was 10+ years ago.... with the virulent left faction popping out of the woodwork, I'm sure those numbers have only expanded, and someone like Shitberg could probably afford a half dozen of them or more. Social networking, shit like that probably made it much easier to find them, too.

It is a little peculiar that, if I was a layperson doing a research project, I could put together a flow chart in about 6 hours with most of the pro gun individuals of any
consequence on it. There wouldn't be many question marks- because by and large pro gun/pro rights people aren't that shifty. You go on the other side of the fence though, and you end up with a chart full of question marks. IMHO pro RKBA forces would do well to find/recruit some players that have punched out and switched sides, or at least
have become disenfranchised/skeptical of their work. Even if they're not embedded, they might be able to identify some of the new players. The antis seem to be a big fan
of secrecy, and the reasons are obvious.


-Mike
 

headednorth

NES Member
Rating - 100%
18   0   0
Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Messages
15,327
Likes
17,757
The constitution is still ignored often and only enough lip service is given to keep people from violently revolting. The US acts more and more like an empire with every passing day. The government continually testing how far it can go. A little more now. No mass revolt? A little more. A small scale revolt? Back off for a little while. We have time. It then continues again until liberty is truly gone and people awaken and realize it is gone but there is now nothing they can do about it.

“Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.” – Frederick Douglass
 

MachineHead

NES Member
Rating - 100%
65   0   0
Joined
Nov 12, 2014
Messages
8,319
Likes
3,522
Location
Central MA
The NRA wrote a small piece on this, hopefully they put some resources into it:

NRA-ILA | NRA Statement on Massachusetts Gun Ban Ruling

The story is all over Fox News, NRATV, etc. if Breyer (don’t know if he’s the flip-flopper on the bench) steps down from SCOTUS this summer and we get another righty judge, then it might be possible to see this case get some light.

What I do hope is that whichever AWB and mag cap case makes it to SCOTUS, that they rule broadly and decisively in our favor.
 

Horrible

NES Member
Rating - 100%
16   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
12,020
Likes
4,277
Location
NOLA
So what were? Confused.





What did Miller say about guns with military purposes? Or should we be using M-16's? Confused.





They are "around", you just need to motivate them. So far, not enough motivation; good luck with that. Don't forget pitchforks and torches.





What?
Good luck with that :(

Since Heller and McDonald SCOTUS has had plenty of chances to set lower courts straight to to specify some standard of scrutiny other than "well, it's not mere rational basis scrutiny". Yet they have gone out of their way to refuse to take any gun cases since those two. Even while Scalia was alive. Very, very frustrating. There should have been some good pro-2A precedents further locking down Heller. Instead we get nothing. And it's only a matter of time before one or both of the geezer duo of Thomas and Kennedy are gone.
Funny how gay marriage is considered settled law since the SCOTUS decision but Heller and McDonald need to be re-litigated with every case.

MA with their May issue LTC scam is in direct violation of both these SCOTUS (Heller and McDonald) cases with no consequences
 

Al458

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Aug 17, 2016
Messages
159
Likes
178
Location
North Shore
The story is all over Fox News, NRATV, etc. if Breyer (don’t know if he’s the flip-flopper on the bench) steps down from SCOTUS this summer and we get another righty judge, then it might be possible to see this case get some light.

What I do hope is that whichever AWB and mag cap case makes it to SCOTUS, that they rule broadly and decisively in our favor.

Anthony Kennedy is the flip flopper talking about retirment, but it would be awesome if Stephen Breyer got the hell off the court as he doesn't flip flop he is 100 percent lib
 
Top Bottom