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

[Xike]

It's not an appeal, it's a motion for reconsideration. An appeal comes next.

Okay, so is this essentially requesting the Judge to reconsider count two and only count two (at which point, either the case continues with only count two or the entire ruling, including the summary judgement of counts 1 and 3, are appealed to a higher court)? I'm not super well versed in legalese.

 

[terraformer]

Okay, so is this essentially requesting the Judge to reconsider count two and only count two (at which point, either the case continues with only count two or the entire ruling, including the summary judgement of counts 1 and 3, are appealed to a higher court)? I'm not super well versed in legalese.

Once the motion was put in, it tolled the appeals timeline. If he denies, the appeal is then due 14 days later. If he grants the motion, the other counts appeals get held and they litigate count 2. He likely won't reconsider. But you can't effectively appeal count 2 without a factual record. We had this issue in Draper. But lets face it, facts go in our favor, so they are doing everything they can to not allow fact finding in these cases.

 

[Noreaster]

He likely won't reconsider. But you can't effectively appeal count 2 without a factual record. We had this issue in Draper. But lets face it, facts go in our favor, so they are doing everything they can to not allow fact finding in these cases.

I see the process is required... However this seems like a loose loose situation. I would think the judge would see the motion to reconsider as a "dude you f'ed up". Then the judge gets insulted and says screw you for making me do extra paperwork and goes against you for the rest of the case.

 

[MachineHead]

It may not be extra paperwork if it was already considered as part of the process.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Back on track please.....

MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND THE JUDGMENT

Motion Denied! Back to where we were.

 

[bfm]

I see the process is required... However this seems like a loose loose situation.

That's just too loose for my taste.

 

[Noreaster]

That's just too loose for my taste.

Well if i am going to get it wrong, may as well be wrong twice!

 

[Netwatcher]

Not surprised.

 

[amm5061]

Motion Denied! Back to where we were.

I hope you guys had the appeal ready to file as soon as he issued the ruling.

 

[JayCaliber]

An earlier post on here mentioned appeals go to a different judge. So if an appeal is the next course of action who's the judge this time? Not sure how this legal stuff works.

 

[Squire]

Well if i am going to get it wrong, may as well be wrong twice!

Don't two wrongs make a right? not a Right, though.

 

[StevieP]

Don't two wrongs make a right? not a Right, though.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.

(sorry. had to do it. we now return you to our regularly scheduled drivel)

 

[MachineHead]

An earlier post on here mentioned appeals go to a different judge. So if an appeal is the next course of action who's the judge this time? Not sure how this legal stuff works.

That’s a good question. Wondering the same thing.

 

[Coyote33]

It's not an appeal, it's a motion for reconsideration. An appeal comes next.

Motion Denied! Back to where we were.

I hope you guys had the appeal ready to file as soon as he issued the ruling.

So, is it NOW an appeal?

 

[Drix]

So, is it NOW an appeal?

I don't think knuckledragger was responding to the court documents but rather the request to get back on track.

 

[CatSnoutSoup]

I don't think knuckledragger was responding to the court documents but rather the request to get back on track.

Sorry, what?

The motion to alter or amend was denied, that is the point we are back to — awaiting filing of an appeal, correct?

Worman et al v. Baker et al (1:17-cv-10107), Massachusetts District Court

See docket item 98 referencing item 96.

:emoji_tiger:

 

[amm5061]

Sorry, what?

The motion to alter or amend was denied, that is the point we are back to — awaiting filing of an appeal, correct?

Worman et al v. Baker et al (1:17-cv-10107), Massachusetts District Court

See docket item 98 referencing item 96.

:emoji_tiger:

That's what I thought. They had to request the judge reconsider the one item because standing or ripeness or something legal that I kinda understand but can't explain. Now that he's upheld his ruling, that requirement has been fulfilled and an appeal can be filed with the 1st Circus.

Did I get that right?

 

[Netwatcher]

Just out of curiosity. When this is appealed, how long will it be before it sees it's day in court?

 

[Waher]

Shooting Illustrated has an article, SQUEEZE OUR RIGHTS: Massachusetts Gun-ban Case Highlights Importance of Trump's Judicial Appointments.

Can a state attorney general unilaterally reinterpret a gun control statute to retroactively ban firearms that had been openly bought and sold within the state throughout the law's 20 year history? William G. Young, a federal judge in Massachusetts,said yes" in Workman (yes, the editor got the name of the case wrong) V. Healey, the NRA-supported challenege to the attorney general's ban.

Few judges at that time took the Second Amendment seriously. Yet their boldness in trying to write the individual right to bear arms out of existence is perhaps exceed by the boldness of judges like Young, who-though bound by Heller-defiantly refuse to enforce it.

 

[Coyote33]

Is there a deadline or "window of opportunity" to appeal?

 

[Boston4567]

Is there a deadline or "window of opportunity" to appeal?

I think they're appealing it, but the NSSF case is also still ongoing. That case survived MSJ, so that means we should actually be getting a real trial.

Then again, Maura is pulling every possible delay tactic imaginable. I just checked PACER and today she filed 63 pages of nonsense with the appeals court claiming 11th Amendment immunity.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

I think they're appealing it, but the NSSF case is also still ongoing. That case survived MSJ, so that means we should actually be getting a real trial.

Then again, Maura is pulling every possible delay tactic imaginable. I just checked PACER and today she filed 63 pages of nonsense with the appeals court claiming 11th Amendment immunity.

I claim 2nd amendment right to not be infringed.
Edit: I claim 2nd amendment immunity and the 5th.

 

[Drix]

she filed 63 pages of nonsense with the appeals court claiming 11th Amendment

Wish we had better updates when these things happen.

 

[Horrible]

Shooting Illustrated has an article, SQUEEZE OUR RIGHTS: Massachusetts Gun-ban Case Highlights Importance of Trump's Judicial Appointments.

Great find. Good to see this printed nationally.

We need to get the word out to the rest of the nation about what is happening here. They are currently executing their playbook to disarm us all in the blue states first. They are showing their hand and the rest of the nation needs to learn from this.

Shooting Illustrated - July 2018 - 20

 

[MachineHead]

Wish we had better updates when these things happen.

Realistically, Comm2A does a pretty good job on notifying us. These 63 pages don’t mean much till a ruling is rendered.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

Shooting Illustrated has an article, SQUEEZE OUR RIGHTS: Massachusetts Gun-ban Case Highlights Importance of Trump's Judicial Appointments.

link? Nevermind

 

[amm5061]

Realistically, Comm2A does a pretty good job on notifying us. These 63 pages don’t mean much till a ruling is rendered.

^ this. I suspect this 11th amendment dance is not going to fly so long as the Plaintiffs were chosen correctly.

 

[Noreaster]

I think they're appealing it, but the NSSF case is also still ongoing. That case survived MSJ, so that means we should actually be getting a real trial.

Then again, Maura is pulling every possible delay tactic imaginable. I just checked PACER and today she filed 63 pages of nonsense with the appeals court claiming 11th Amendment immunity.

Which case is that? Between the 2 original challenges and the subsequent appeals from both sides, it getting hard to follow what case is what. (and i didn't readily find a case that was updated yesterday)

 

[Mike S]

Which case is that? Between the 2 original challenges and the subsequent appeals from both sides, it getting hard to follow what case is what. (and i didn't readily find a case that was updated yesterday)

The NSSF case is Pullman Arms v. Healey

 

[Noreaster]

The NSSF case is Pullman Arms v. Healey

Thank you. I dont have access to PACER and the site i was looking at doesnt have anything past April 24th. Now i know " im not worthy" ha ha. Thanks again.