That would be a woman who doesn't love her man too much.
-
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
- Thread starter Comm2A
- Start date
That would be a woman who doesn't love her man too much.
GM-GUY
NES Member
What’s really changed (for me) post kangaroo court?
Not much, the ban remains, I still have the same contempt for the legal system I’ve had for years now and it doesn’t change what I do in the least - as a matter of fact, it inspires me to give the system the finger when ever possible.
What does it change for ‘up and coming’ new shooters? A lot unfortunately, they can’t buy what you can in what 45 other states.
What does it change for the rest of the citizenry, quite abit also, now the AG can reinterpret laws and by edict with no notice make someone a felon in waiting. Nothing stopping something on cars or appliances or homes - just the right group to put a bug in her ear. Wait till the next ATV crash that kills a kid.
Not much, the ban remains, I still have the same contempt for the legal system I’ve had for years now and it doesn’t change what I do in the least - as a matter of fact, it inspires me to give the system the finger when ever possible.
What does it change for ‘up and coming’ new shooters? A lot unfortunately, they can’t buy what you can in what 45 other states.
What does it change for the rest of the citizenry, quite abit also, now the AG can reinterpret laws and by edict with no notice make someone a felon in waiting. Nothing stopping something on cars or appliances or homes - just the right group to put a bug in her ear. Wait till the next ATV crash that kills a kid.
In God We Trust
NES Member
Question for the legal minds here. Why does a law stand while it’s being fought in court and why does it take so f***ing long?
If a state law was passed tomorrow that legalized slavery, would I be able to own people for 4 years while it went through the legal process? If not, why?
I’m genuinely curious how this works.
If a state law was passed tomorrow that legalized slavery, would I be able to own people for 4 years while it went through the legal process? If not, why?
I’m genuinely curious how this works.
Mass-diver
NES Member
Devastating decision, even though not unexpected. The whole copy-cat issue had been dealt with by the ATF in the 90s, apparently Healy knows more than them about firearms. Rough stuff, unclear what she will do next, if anything.
In God We Trust
NES Member
Run for governor and win
headednorth
NES Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2012
- Messages
- 26,669
- Likes
- 49,208
IANALM (i am not a legal mind) but Ill throw my two cents in anyway. The legal process moves as fast or as slow as it wants to. Remember they passed that upskirt video legislation in record time? They were pretending to give a shit about 50% of the potential voters in the state. If slavery was legalized, it would be banned again 6 hours later. They would find some way to say that that law doesnt stand for the 6 hours it would take them to rescind it.
I haven't had a chance to fully catch up on this, but one question for the legal experts.
The case against Healey was dismissed. What does this mean from a precedent perspective? Is it the same as if it had fully gone to trial and the decision was made for Healey?
Thanks.
The case against Healey was dismissed. What does this mean from a precedent perspective? Is it the same as if it had fully gone to trial and the decision was made for Healey?
Thanks.
napoleon1815
NES Member
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2013
- Messages
- 2,313
- Likes
- 851
Well if it makes us feel any better...my brother is in Afghanistan and texted me while I was asleep last night...said everyone over there heard the news (as it's mainstream) and everyone is mad about it.
He also wanted to say that in his 20+ years of deployments all over the globe he never ran into anyone with an AR15.
He also wanted to say that in his 20+ years of deployments all over the globe he never ran into anyone with an AR15.
The court said........
In the absence of federal legislation, Massachusetts is free to ban these weapons and large capacity magazines. Other states are equally free to leave unregulated and available to their law-abiding citizens. Their policy matters are simply not of constitutional moment.
......
Americans are not afraid of bumptious, raucous, and robust debate about these matters. We call it democracy.*
...
* except when it comes to the Hogg boy vs Ingraham , then it’s boycott to remove the opposition.
In the absence of federal legislation, Massachusetts is free to ban these weapons and large capacity magazines. Other states are equally free to leave unregulated and available to their law-abiding citizens. Their policy matters are simply not of constitutional moment.
......
Americans are not afraid of bumptious, raucous, and robust debate about these matters. We call it democracy.*
...
* except when it comes to the Hogg boy vs Ingraham , then it’s boycott to remove the opposition.
I'm not a lawyer but I found this on Wikipedia -- Caetano v. Massachusetts. I have bold-italicized the pertinent sections.
Background[edit]
Jaime Caetano was reported to have been hospitalized and "in fear for [her] life" after an altercation with her "abusive" boyfriend.[2] After obtaining several restraining orders that "proved futile", Caetano accepted a stun gun from a friend for self-defense.[3] One night, when her ex-boyfriend confronted her outside her work and threatened her, she displayed the stun gun and successfully avoided an altercation.[3] However, when police discovered that she was in possession of the stun gun, she was arrested, tried, and convicted under a Massachusetts law that outlawed the possession of stun guns.[4] The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court had said her stun gun was "not the type of weapon that is eligible for Second Amendment protection” because it was “not in common use at the time of [the Second Amendment’s] enactment.”[5] Caetano then appealed the Massachusetts court's ruling to the Supreme Court of the United States.[6]
Opinion of the Court[edit]
In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.[7] Citing District of Columbia v. Heller[8] and McDonald v. City of Chicago,[9] the Court began its opinion by stating that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".[6] The Court then identified three reasons why the Massachusetts court's opinion contradicted prior rulings by the United States Supreme Court.[1] First, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted Heller's conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding”.[10] Second, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns were "dangerous per se at common law and unusual" because they were "a thoroughly modern invention", but the Supreme Court held that this was also inconsistent with Heller.[11] Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]
I think there would be ample grounds for an appeal of Judge Young's ill-considered and one-sided ruling.
Background[edit]
Jaime Caetano was reported to have been hospitalized and "in fear for [her] life" after an altercation with her "abusive" boyfriend.[2] After obtaining several restraining orders that "proved futile", Caetano accepted a stun gun from a friend for self-defense.[3] One night, when her ex-boyfriend confronted her outside her work and threatened her, she displayed the stun gun and successfully avoided an altercation.[3] However, when police discovered that she was in possession of the stun gun, she was arrested, tried, and convicted under a Massachusetts law that outlawed the possession of stun guns.[4] The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court had said her stun gun was "not the type of weapon that is eligible for Second Amendment protection” because it was “not in common use at the time of [the Second Amendment’s] enactment.”[5] Caetano then appealed the Massachusetts court's ruling to the Supreme Court of the United States.[6]
Opinion of the Court[edit]
In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.[7] Citing District of Columbia v. Heller[8] and McDonald v. City of Chicago,[9] the Court began its opinion by stating that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".[6] The Court then identified three reasons why the Massachusetts court's opinion contradicted prior rulings by the United States Supreme Court.[1] First, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted Heller's conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding”.[10] Second, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns were "dangerous per se at common law and unusual" because they were "a thoroughly modern invention", but the Supreme Court held that this was also inconsistent with Heller.[11] Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]
I think there would be ample grounds for an appeal of Judge Young's ill-considered and one-sided ruling.
CatSnoutSoup
NES Member
Well if it happens maybe that is a more harmless place for her -- seeing as how the responsibilities of the Governor's office and legislature seem to have been abandoned to the office she now holds, Attorney General.
EABOD - Gov. Charlie Baker
EABOD - MA Legislature (all of you, so your gonna need a massive bag, maybe think BOD picnic)
![[angry2]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/019.gif "Angry2 [angry2]")
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2017
- Messages
- 731
- Likes
- 1,201
Count 2, which was about the instant creation of thousands of felons overnight, was deemed to be "not ripe" enough to proceed. It refers to "illegal AW's" obtained between 1994 and 07/20/2016. Judge proclaimed that since she's stated she would not prosecute, and no one has been prosecuted, there's no reason to continue. It does not refer to her enforcement notice and post 07/20/2016 "AW's".
IANAL - just my opinion of what I read in the decision
ISOTOX
NES Member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2008
- Messages
- 8,261
- Likes
- 5,331
Yesterday, Maura Healey cheered a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts which dismissed a challenge by law-abiding gun owners to her unilateral law, issued without input from the Legislature or Governor, to redefine what rifles are allowed in the Commonwealth and which ones she has the right to confiscate.
This is a decision with broad implications not only for the Second Amendment but also for the Separation of Powers and how much authority government officials have in our constitutional republic.
If the sitting Attorney General is re-elected, we will no doubt get Maura the same. We need to elect a leader to that office who will put politics aside and enforce our laws to protect our people. Dan Shores is that person, and he is the only chance we have to bring common sense, integrity and the rule of law back to our great Commonwealth.
Will you join us in fighting to defeat Maura Healey? $10, $25, or $50 contributions are welcomed and will make a difference.
This is a decision with broad implications not only for the Second Amendment but also for the Separation of Powers and how much authority government officials have in our constitutional republic.
If the sitting Attorney General is re-elected, we will no doubt get Maura the same. We need to elect a leader to that office who will put politics aside and enforce our laws to protect our people. Dan Shores is that person, and he is the only chance we have to bring common sense, integrity and the rule of law back to our great Commonwealth.
Will you join us in fighting to defeat Maura Healey? $10, $25, or $50 contributions are welcomed and will make a difference.
Individualist
NES Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2009
- Messages
- 4,663
- Likes
- 4,366
Made another donation.
Hardwired
NES Member
KMM696
NES Member
I'm assuming you're referring at least in part to the current legal method of coming to a conclusion, and then generating arguments to match?
While I understand your pain, I respectfully submit that we cannot afford to completely abandon the job of 'attorney' to the progressive f***wads. Hang in there....please.
Pfff already got a slot for army flight school... I'll figure out what I'll do in a couple years when I'm back and in the Guard. I admittedly went to law school idealistically and impulsively. I'm all for helping with the good fight but I can't devote my life to what is ultimately shenanigans.
Mike
Mike
KMM696
NES Member
Flight school?? Congratulations!!! Well, if I had to choose between lawyer and H-60 driver for a career, I'd go that way too.
MetalgodZ
NES Member
Yes you can. And if you can find a friendly 07 FFL, you can buy pretty much anything you want.
Realize, though, that the barrier to purchase ($$$) will be higher, and new shooters will be discouraged.
Also, NES is full of knowledgable folks with tight wallets. The smaller 07 FFLs that are doing this are NOT MAKING A BUNCH OF MONEY ON THIS.
Maybe. I don't know which of the two R candidates is the right one at the moment, and the fact that I don't know that because I've not specifically sought out the platforms and differences indicates that both have some serious catch-up to do in terms of name recognition. I hope that one or the other can come up with a platform that's palatable to the MA electorate, and can be polished enough and play by the rules sufficiently to gain the independent vote. The primary could damage either one's chances, and a platform that would fly in another state will sink a candidate in MA, especially when trying to get every last potential non-Maura vote.
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,820
You still finishing the degree though, right?
Oh yeah. I'll be taking the bar as well. When all is said and done if I stick with a legal career I'll probably be looking to do something like estate planning. Flexible hours, relatively painless, and keeps me out of the courts. Guard obligation is 1-2+ days a week flying, so a career in litigation is entirely off the table -- not to say I can never litigate.
Litigation with regard to 2A is not by any means a "lost cause." In a place like MA litigation is literally our only hope... the state of courts is just absolutely insane.
Mike
Mass-diver
NES Member
From a practical standpoint, had Healy lost, it’s likely we have just seen a semi-auto ban from the legislators that Baker would have signed with pleasure. Horrible, horrible precedent, but doesn’t change much for us on the ground, at least short term.
Ugh, dark times.
Ugh, dark times.
