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

Coyote33 said:
The WAAF guys sometimes TALK A GOOD GAME, but then they get the .guv on and get all smarmy with him. Same with Matt Light. Why can't we get these guys to commit in a solid way? It would NOT hurt their ratings.
...
Click to expand...

However, Charlie would never, EVER return.

Not sure if it would hurt their ratings or pride more, but they will never risk it.

And if he knew in advance he'd cancel or no show.
 
Last edited:
To be honest it looks like the kind of thing you'd put in place as a preable to outright banning private handgun ownership. It makes it clear that the fed is only interested in protecting rifles and shotguns, and states can do whatever they want regarding handguns.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
 
42! said:
To be honest it looks like the kind of thing you'd put in place as a preable to outright banning private handgun ownership. It makes it clear that the fed is only interested in protecting rifles and shotguns, and states can do whatever they want regarding handguns.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
If it did play out that way, start open carrying your rifle.
 
42! said:
To be honest it looks like the kind of thing you'd put in place as a preable to outright banning private handgun ownership. It makes it clear that the fed is only interested in protecting rifles and shotguns, and states can do whatever they want regarding handguns.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Agreed: The rifle & shotgun positioning was odd to me. Why not just pass a law affirming the Second Amendment in its entirety? Or the whole COTUS for that matter? Legally bind the SCOTUS to the COTUS. Oh wait...
 
Those with access / more legal savvy than I what does this mean?
[FONT=&quot]STIPULATION of Dismissal of Nicholas Feld by Paul Nelson Chamberlain, Nicholas Andrew Feld, Gun Owner's Action League, Inc., Anthony Linden, On Target Training, Inc., Overwatch Outpost, Jason William Sawyer, David Seth Worman.
[/FONT]https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/20411903/Worman_et_al_v_Baker_et_al
 
babygorilla said:
Those with access / more legal savvy than I what does this mean?
[FONT=&quot]STIPULATION of Dismissal of Nicholas Feld by Paul Nelson Chamberlain, Nicholas Andrew Feld, Gun Owner's Action League, Inc., Anthony Linden, On Target Training, Inc., Overwatch Outpost, Jason William Sawyer, David Seth Worman.
[/FONT]https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/20411903/Worman_et_al_v_Baker_et_al
Click to expand...

I think its pretty much what it sounds like: We (the plaintiff or suit bringing party) will dismiss if these certain conditions are met. This could be reply bad for MA gun owners or really good depending on the stipulations.
 
babygorilla said:
Those with access / more legal savvy than I what does this mean?
[FONT=&amp]STIPULATION of Dismissal of Nicholas Feld by Paul Nelson Chamberlain, Nicholas Andrew Feld, Gun Owner's Action League, Inc., Anthony Linden, On Target Training, Inc., Overwatch Outpost, Jason William Sawyer, David Seth Worman.
[/FONT]https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/20411903/Worman_et_al_v_Baker_et_al
Click to expand...

The complete one-page document is attached. Plaintiff Nicholas Feld dismisses all claims against the defendants, all other claims continuing without dismissal.
 

Attachments

  • FeldDismissal.pdf
    112.4 KB · Views: 78
Oh hell no.
They picked the fight.
No quarter , no mercy, no compromise.
By the time this makes it to the supremes chances are it will be a far more friendly place than it has in a long time.
Neither Faker or the MSP has given us a break.
I'm sure most people are the same , push me into a fight I wanted no part of and it's going to be far uglier.
 
Lank said:
What does this mean? Should I assume this is good for us?
Click to expand...
If there's one thing I've learned from all the time here on NES, it's to never ever EVER assume that something in MA involving a firearm law is "good for us" until it's actually, y'know, "good for us".... Same way that I wouldn't even trust a check that my priest or rabbi gave me (until I call the bank and they tell me it "cleared").
Cynical? Maybe, but...Massachusetts.
 
GlockJock said:
If there's one thing I've learned from all the time here on NES, it's to never ever EVER assume that something in MA involving a firearm law is "good for us" until it's actually, y'know, "good for us".... Same way that I wouldn't even trust a check that my priest or rabbi gave me (until I call the bank and they tell me it "cleared").
Cynical? Maybe, but...Massachusetts.
Click to expand...

Very true.
 
I found two things interesting in the defendant's motion. 1) They use the "fact" that a bump stock can be used on an AR, makes it "Like" an M-16....but aren't those illegal in MA? 2) They argue that "copy" means "similar" and that this is not vague. But what does similar mean in the context of firearms? Aren't two firearms similar if they are both chambered for 5.56? At least to some extent they are. Seems pretty vague to me.
 
I can't wait for Healy's hubris to bite her in the ass.

I just read both briefs and i need help understanding why our side used a specific quote. Maybe I'm misreading the plaintiff's brief, but I've read similar mis-quotes of Scalia, most recently from Senator Feinstein's questioning of then nominee Judge Gorsuch.

"Even though Heller recognizes that “weapons that are most useful in military service – M16 rifles and the like – may be banned,” Heller, 554 U.S."

That erroneously suggests that weapons like the M16 can be banned. But the actual text of Heller reads... (emphasis mine)

"If weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second
Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause"

Which suggests to me the opposite.
 
I'm assuming if the state ban is voided by the court then Boston's AWB also goes into the toilet on the same grounds?
 
I like that plaintiff's motion takes direct aim at the "interest balancing" bullshit that seems to favor imagined collective desires for crime prevention over individual civil rights.
 
Both quotes from the defense’s latest writings:

When asked, none of the plaintiffs or their experts could identify a single example of the use of an AR-15, AK47, or other assault weapon in self-defense.33
Click to expand...

The trial might need a few examples. A cursory search which may need verification.

5 People Who Used An AR-15 to Defend Themselves, and It Probably Saved Their Lives

And most famously: Oklahoma man killed three teen home intruders using AR-15 rifle

Not In Common Use for Self-Defense Today. Nor are assault weapons or LCMs commonly used,28 or suitable, for self-defense today. Because of their high muzzle velocity—more than double that of a 9mm handgun—assault weapons over-penetrate typical building materials, posing a serious risk to bystanders.29 Compared to handguns, they are difficult to maneuver in close quarters and require more movements by the user to become operable.30 Of the two guides to self-defense published by the National Rifle Association (“NRA”), neither mentions any weapons covered by the AWB as an appropriate choice for self-defense; instead, both focus on handguns.31
Click to expand...

AR-15 Rifles For Home Defense? Yes!

Hey, does anyone know where we can find a copy of the questioning the Defense is referring to in the first quote above?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Hello Massachusetts Folks
Replies
14
Views
3K
spt_1955
spt_1955
Alves v. McNamara?
Replies
3
Views
581
KBCraig
KBCraig
US Supreme Court OT 2019
9 10 11
Replies
304
Views
28K
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