-
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.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS June Giveaway ***Keltec SUB2000***
Comm2A files against the AG on LCIs, Draper v Coakley
- Thread starter BostonBullit
- Start date
This is how I feel.
http://youtu.be/1ME4aCLb5nw
We're going to beacon hill to take back the glocks! BYAH!
http://youtu.be/1ME4aCLb5nw
We're going to beacon hill to take back the glocks! BYAH!
Jbarila
NES Member
So correct me if I am wrong. The Brady amicus states the safety benefit of a load indicator but no where states what a load indicator should be which is the basis of the suit?
goodzilla
NES Member
P-14
NES Member
The backhanded reply to the Brady brief is a slam-dunk. Keep the fight going, Comm2A!
any chance the new AG will 'rethink' this stance and change the policy on LCI's and this avoid a lawsuit going forward?
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2009
- Messages
- 16,367
- Likes
- 4,835
Slim to none and Slim is out of town.
Healy is very anti gun. She thinks the 2a doesn't mean an individual right to bear arms, she said this recently. She's a nut.
Friday
NES Member
Unfortunately, Healy is also a better attorney than Coakley. She may be a bit more practical about this, which won't help us.
GlockJock
NES Member
Um....not for nuttin', but...I'm a better attorney than Martha.. and I puffed and partied my way out of college before I ever made it to law school. (Belushi may or may not have based his Blutarski character on some of my Rutgers "social get-togethers" ... )
Martha et al thought about those things too, this isn't new. IIRC there's even an exemption stuffed into one of the handgun compliance regs for smart guns or some BS. They've been thinking about that for years, doesn't mean they can/will actually do anything about it.
-Mike
Why? CA has already passed microstamping.
GM-GUY
NES Member
Just like the raids are coming in CT - believe it. They didn't want it before the election - but voters will have four years to forget before the next one.
I have no doubt that the results last night will only cause the progressive/liberal/moonbats to double down on what they want - the question is will the new GOP folks fight back or 'compromise' and 'seek common ground'?
I have no doubt that the results last night will only cause the progressive/liberal/moonbats to double down on what they want - the question is will the new GOP folks fight back or 'compromise' and 'seek common ground'?
Just based off the resistance they were met with last year. I think it might deter radical thinking from the AG. Also I thought she said during the debates that it's not her job to do it through consumer protection laws.
That and we are not California. Close and without vigilance we could become them.
Call me an optimist.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I disagree so very strongly.
The resistance was constituents calling their state senators and representatives on Beacon Hill in response to proposed legislation. The legislative process has nothing to do with regulations that she passes. Her regulations don't have to be voted on by the legislature. She writes the regulations, holds a hearing (think Communist-era show trial), and enacts the regulations. She won overwhelmingly, so she doesn't have to worry about losing her job.
Angry constituents (that's us) will call up Beacon Hill and complain. The legislators will duck and cover, but ultimately do nothing, and her regulation will stand until and unless Comm2A can shoot it down in court.
In the meantime, she gets to hold congratulatory press conferences with Handgun Control Inc. (or whatever their name is this week), Gabby Giffords, and bow-tied bumkissers from the Globe and network TV.
Given the timing that could really stretch our limited, available resources (and the NRA sure as hell isn't
going to come to our rescue).
It's inevitable that in the next year or so, Comm2A is going to be faced with challenging FID/LTC suitability
denials on top of the current, lawsuit against the AG's office as well as other pending cases.
She could declare a microstamping regulation, not so much out of the pretense of "public safety", but as
a retaliatory strike (out of spite), against Comm2A for their current and any future filings by overwhelming
them (us), financially and physically.
Friday
NES Member
yes, but that I think could get quickly squashed by a federal injunction if need be. They would have to be very careful in how they would enact such a thing, if ever.
How do you come to that conclusion? CA's microstamping hasn't been quashed. The lawsuit has been running for quite some time.
So? What makes you think a federal judge would quash such a regulation quickly?
The legislature has much more latitude from the courts than unelected bureaucrats acting without a mandate from the legislature.
Tell you what... let us wait for a lawyer to chime in, too.
Tell you what... let us wait for a lawyer to chime in, too.
The biggest difference is that someone like Healy cannot appropriate funding to pay for a microstamping program. They'd have to pass a bill to get that done, which makes it pretty much dead in the water. Not to mention the AG's office doesn't really have control of EOPS/CJIS/etc. Those entities aren't going to do anything without getting money to pay for the huge databases, etc.
-Mike
Friday
NES Member
different circuit courts, for one, and lately the 1st has been rather pro civil rights. If they were to ban all handguns, save for those with Microstamping tech, I think it would get shut down.
I don't see any need for another database. If handguns were required to microstamp cartridge cases with the handgun's serial number, she could simply argue that the current DPS firearm database could be used to identify the owner of the handgun.
What is it that a microstamping regulation needs funding for? Can't the AG make a regulation that says "a pistols sold by a dealer after January 1, 2016 shall be defective unless it has an effective microstamping device" and then sit back and laugh as the dealers hide from their shadows? No database required.
Exactly. I don't see any need for appropriation.
They can do that but it would make them look bad if they're not inventorying fired cases, etc, and doing all the necessary administration that goes along with it. Gotta have the dog and pony show otherwise such regulation has no chance of surviving a serious legal challenge. I can hear a judge now... "So let me get this straight- The AG is mandating that all handguns have this feature, yet, the state has absolutely no means, ability, or desire to use the microstamping data?"
Also, if it was going to happen, it would have happened already. The previous AGs were all 110% antis, you know they would get people like McQuilliken et al on the phone to see what kind of heinous shit they could legally get away with.
-Mike
In magical thinking world, where technology is perfect and people don't break laws and stuff doesn't wear out, how much data could you really put into the microstamping?
"serial number" isn't really sufficient to identify a gun or its owner since a serial number is only relevant for a particular manufacturer and model. e.g. there's no reason that Sig and S&W couldn't both use serial 143527, since one is a P226 and the other an M&P 9mm.
Similar threads
