• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

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

Rob Boudrie said:
If the media discovers that Charline was complicit in a gun ban and covers that news it will increase his chances of re-election.
Click to expand...

If he's running as what he really is , a Democrat.
He didn't squeak it out by much over a Dem who was about as popular as Herpes even in this liberal paradise.
The margin was a hell of a lot tighter than the amount of gun owners in this state.
 
Dadstoys said:
If he's running as what he really is , a Democrat.
He didn't squeak it out by much over a Dem who was about as popular as Herpes even in this liberal paradise.
The margin was a hell of a lot tighter than the amount of gun owners in this state.
Click to expand...
I suppose he could lose if gun owners voted for Healy to punish him.
 
Dadstoys said:
If he's running as what he really is , a Democrat.
He didn't squeak it out by much over a Dem who was about as popular as Herpes even in this liberal paradise.
The margin was a hell of a lot tighter than the amount of gun owners in this state.
Click to expand...

I think you underestimate how much your average democrat likes him due to how much like them he acts. I have friends who basically always vote democrat, and they all like him quite a bit for whatever reason.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
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.
Click to expand...

Jeez.
 
I just did some calculations and figured out how much "value" I'd loose if we win this case and the AWB goes away.

I'm kinda shocked at how big the number is.

It'd be totally worth it. I'd gladly give up that value if the AWB goes away.
 
firestorm said:
I think you underestimate how much your average democrat likes him due to how much like them he acts. I have friends who basically always vote democrat, and they all like him quite a bit for whatever reason.
Click to expand...
Many of the low information types just get off the bus and just check straight D without even looking at the names.
Hard to say how this is going to play out except I'm not voting for the backstabbing dick , I don't care who's running against him.
You don't buy the guy who prison raped you dinner afterward.
 
Dadstoys said:
Many of the low information types just get off the bus and just check straight D without even looking at the names.
Hard to say how this is going to play out except I'm not voting for the backstabbing dick , I don't care who's running against him.
You don't buy the guy who prison raped you dinner afterward.
Click to expand...

I can't wait to see what you say when the opposing candidate is running as openly anti 2a and openly supports the new interpretation of the AWB. [pot]
 
42! said:
I can't wait to see what you say when the opposing candidate is running as openly anti 2a and openly supports the new interpretation of the AWB. [pot]
Click to expand...

Or for state congress races, no one at all. So many of the incumbents run unopposed.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
It would have been very straightforward for Comm2A to supply individual plaintiffs. We could even have made it look like a UN tea party.
Click to expand...
Can you answer the first question? Why does it take 1 yr to get a date? Yet, a ****ing sports player and I don't give a shit who it is. Gets a date within weeks.
The justice system is truly ****ed
 
Dadstoys said:
You mean just like Charlie did ?

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/07/gov_charlie_baker_ag_maura_hea.html
Click to expand...

As much as I don't like that Baker didn't make a bigger issue of her failure to respond to his letter, her failure to respond to letters from Legislators, and that he did not speak out against her, the two out of context quotes really don't say much.

"has the authority and the jurisdiction" isn't even a complete statement and is technically correct. But Healey went well beyond this with her creating a similarity test, confusing guidance, and ignoring 20 years previous interpretation.

"If there are people that are selling weapons that violate the assault weapons ban in Massachusetts, it's important to them to get clarified," out of context, does not state that he believes Healey is correct, is technically correct, could just as easily have been spun as Baker wanting the AG's statement clarified because of the confusion it caused, which is what his letter asked for.

To me, these are non-statements. I want to see the whole conversation. Not just the media spin. They may be as presented here, and they may not be.
 
Baker gave it the green light and then was thrown under the bus. Backpeddaled a bit after the agency letter questioning it and the letter from the legislature group and barfs out "hey yeah what's all this about, need some clarification here" and then got "law" defined by faq.

How's them budget vetoes going Charles? Ahhh the taxes on the Mary Jane stuff is going to pay for it.
 
Last edited:
42! said:
As much as I don't like that Baker didn't make a bigger issue of her failure to respond to his letter, her failure to respond to letters from Legislators, and that he did not speak out against her, the two out of context quotes really don't say much.

"has the authority and the jurisdiction" isn't even a complete statement and is technically correct. But Healey went well beyond this with her creating a similarity test, confusing guidance, and ignoring 20 years previous interpretation.

"If there are people that are selling weapons that violate the assault weapons ban in Massachusetts, it's important to them to get clarified," out of context, does not state that he believes Healey is correct, is technically correct, could just as easily have been spun as Baker wanting the AG's statement clarified because of the confusion it caused, which is what his letter asked for.

To me, these are non-statements. I want to see the whole conversation. Not just the media spin. They may be as presented here, and they may not be.
Click to expand...

If you recall she hurled him under the bus when he made a token squeak under heavy backlash.
She outed him as having been part of the planning of it prior behind the scenes.
 
Hardwired said:
Baker gave it the green light and then was thrown under the bus. Backpeddaled a bit after the agency letter questioning it and the letter from the legislature group and barfs out "hey yeah what's all this about, need some clarification here" and then got "law" defined by faq.
Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of Charlie's, but so far he's been somewhat better than the alternative.

Since it's been a year since I read all the BS that went on back then, I do not remember if we had absolute proof that Charlie agreed to her re-writing the AWB? Do we?

My non-trusting mind tells me that it is more likely that she was cagey enough to tell him she was going to enforce the AWB (20+ year old version) and he was fine with that . . . and then after she got his agreement she dropped the bombshell re-write.

No way I can give her the benefit of the doubt that just because she says that he was OK with it, that it means that he was OK with PRECISELY what she did!



Dadstoys said:
If you recall she hurled him under the bus when he made a token squeak under heavy backlash.
She outed him as having been part of the planning of it prior behind the scenes.
Click to expand...

. . . and of course we can believe her because she said so and the LSM reported it. She'd never tell a lie, nor would the media!
 
No way I can give her the benefit of the doubt that just because she says that he was OK with it, that it means that he was OK with PRECISELY what she did!
Click to expand...
All that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to remain silent.
 
Dadstoys said:
If you recall she hurled him under the bus when he made a token squeak under heavy backlash.
She outed him as having been part of the planning of it prior behind the scenes.
Click to expand...
I've seen that said here on NES but I haven't seen anything from Baker or Healy saying he was involved prior to the announcement. I'm sure it's just an oversight on my part and it was in the news someplace perhaps someone could point me to it.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
 
Len-2A Training said:
I'm not a fan of Charlie's, but so far he's been somewhat better than the alternative.

Since it's been a year since I read all the BS that went on back then, I do not remember if we had absolute proof that Charlie agreed to her re-writing the AWB? Do we?

My non-trusting mind tells me that it is more likely that she was cagey enough to tell him she was going to enforce the AWB (20+ year old version) and he was fine with that . . . and then after she got his agreement she dropped the bombshell re-write.

No way I can give her the benefit of the doubt that just because she says that he was OK with it, that it means that he was OK with PRECISELY what she did!





. . . and of course we can believe her because she said so and the LSM reported it. She'd never tell a lie, nor would the media!
Click to expand...

I know if it was me she was telling tales out of school on , I sure as hell would correct the record , quickly.
Not a peep of denial on his part.
 
Dadstoys said:
I know if it was me she was telling tales out of school on , I sure as hell would correct the record , quickly.
Not a peep of denial on his part.
Click to expand...

What votes is he winning by doing that? Anyone here should be smart enough to know that she was trying to cut off any opposition from him at the knees. Whether or not she told him anything he couldn't have stopped her, and I'm not going to start believing the anti 2a media parroting something that she said about who knew what when. I would guess that if she even told him beforehand (And didn't make the whole thing up as a backstop) that it was something like rob said "Hey, heads up i'm going to start heavily enforcing the AWB" no details about her overreach or plan at all.

So if he comes out against it, says he knew nothing and it is all BS he loses anti votes, gains no more gun owner votes (Since he did nothing to stop it) and just gives his next opponent (Possibly her) a sound bite to use "He lied about being notified about this, since ol maura healy would never lie to the people, what else is he lying about?". It's all downside for him, so he shuts up until it blows over and he can try to keep getting elected.
 
For those that asked, the lengthy delay until the next trial date (May 18, 2018) is likely due to two things. Schedule of the federal court and the amount of prep time (including discovery) that needs to be done.
 
Len-2A Training said:
I never said he was a "good man".

And he did protest by letter asking for an explanation. Nothing more legally he could have done other than political suicide going public as pro-gun.
Click to expand...
***
Len is correct. Charlie wants to keep his job and the alternative is much worse. The previous Governor, Coupe Deval, was a mini-Obama statist and as far left as they come. He was more concerned with rights for confused trannies than he was about our rights.
 
firestorm said:
What votes is he winning by doing that? Anyone here should be smart enough to know that she was trying to cut off any opposition from him at the knees. Whether or not she told him anything he couldn't have stopped her, and I'm not going to start believing the anti 2a media parroting something that she said about who knew what when. I would guess that if she even told him beforehand (And didn't make the whole thing up as a backstop) that it was something like rob said "Hey, heads up i'm going to start heavily enforcing the AWB" no details about her overreach or plan at all.

So if he comes out against it, says he knew nothing and it is all BS he loses anti votes, gains no more gun owner votes (Since he did nothing to stop it) and just gives his next opponent (Possibly her) a sound bite to use "He lied about being notified about this, since ol maura healy would never lie to the people, what else is he lying about?". It's all downside for him, so he shuts up until it blows over and he can try to keep getting elected.
Click to expand...

I understand that it's hard to accept the a guy many of us voted for sold us out at the first opportunity.
He's just another common con man and we got had.
Don't think for a second that if anything anti hits his desk it wouldn't have his signature on it in a heartbeat.
No one likes to admit they got taken , so the old , " We had to vote for the republican " excuse comes in.
Not doing it anymore.
 

Similar threads

Hello Massachusetts Folks
Replies
14
Views
3K
spt_1955
spt_1955
Alves v. McNamara?
Replies
3
Views
569
KBCraig
KBCraig
US Supreme Court OT 2019
9 10 11
Replies
304
Views
27K
Waher
Waher
Pressure to agree to PTP vs Trial/complete exoneration
2
Replies
45
Views
4K
Rat187
Rat187
Comm2A and Black Guns Matter in MA week of 12/10/18
Replies
12
Views
2K
CatSnoutSoup
CatSnoutSoup
Back
Top Bottom