- Joined
- Aug 8, 2010
- Messages
- 2,310
- Likes
- 7,307
-
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/Pioneer Valley Arms February Giveaway ***Smith & Wesson SD9VE 9MM***
Comm2A, SAF, GOAL and FPC file against Baker admin on shop closures
- Thread starter Comm2A
- Start date
State wants to stay the order pending appeal. Judge says he's unlikely to stay the order.
Which is dumb because what if the appointments are to buy accessories or ammo which takes a few minutes?
And who’s going to enforce this? Will they have cops or town officials at every gun shop keeping count? Maybe a rhetorical question...
State moves to stay order pending appeal.
Judge says no I think.
Judge says no I think.
Ranges will be addressed in a later hearing (next week, maybe?) - judge said there wasn't enough evidence on the record regarding ranges to make a decision.
Sounds like that will be discussed at the next session/hearing whatever it’s called.
It sucks for range members but, at least the crap legal work by the Cedrone party's attorney only screwed up the range case and didn't negatively impact McCarthy. Decision on ranges sounds like it is on hold for another day as the record was insufficient to craft an order that would allow ranges to open.
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2014
- Messages
- 643
- Likes
- 811
IANAL but not addressing the 4 appointments an hour seems to me to border on malpractice. simple concept. Grocery stores limited to selling food to four people an hour?
Jason Flare
NES Member
I find it odd that the judge couldn’t at least meet the state’s demand of 40%
the state should get a prorated bill for the two months of memberships to clubs for every member.
Have to drop off the call for a work call, but it sounds like it's almost done.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2010
- Messages
- 2,310
- Likes
- 7,307
Absolute disgrace.
Lank
NES Member
Is it too early to blast the AG's phone with loud applause for this victory?
Exactly. And that’s not a constitutional right.
38ExtraSpecial
NES Member
I think we missed the boat on how this was explained. We should have had some concrete examples like NRA range design specifications to back it up. It sounds like this judge wants facts. We should have learned that the first time around and knowing that social distancing was an issue we should have been prepared.
Swing and a miss but I don’t think it will happen at the next hearing. I think he will side with us as soon as he has a proper explanation.
I agree and I really don't see a way the state can enforce the amount of "walk ins" or if it does it wont last long.
Hearing ended.
Next hearing will be on 5/29 at 10am if I’m not mistaken?
Next hearing will be on 5/29 at 10am if I’m not mistaken?
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2010
- Messages
- 2,310
- Likes
- 7,307
This is just another pathetic judge crapping down the neck of law abiding citizens.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Last edited:
Jason Flare
NES Member
Walk-ins are not allowed.
Stand outside, call the store "I need an appointment". "Sure, your appointment is right now, come on in!"
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2010
- Messages
- 2,310
- Likes
- 7,307
You think this is a victory?
Sorry but this is a loss.
Sets up a bad precedent that still violates our rights.
How the hell is that a victory?
El_Guapo77
NES Member
More like at least the state us using lube this time
It's a temporary restraining order. As far as I know the ruling does not set precedent, it provides temporary relief until the judge can do a more thorough ruling on the merits.
We've gone from 0 stores open, to stores being open with limitations. The needle is moving in the right direction.
Re: ranges. It sounds like if the plaintiffs had accepted the 40% capacity thing it would have just gone through. Raising questions meant the judge wanted more information. Maybe that's why they didn't push the 4 transaction thing?
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2014
- Messages
- 643
- Likes
- 811
IANAL it seems as though this judge gave us a fair hearing based on the facts presented. I believe he did his job well. The failure lies in representation which wasn't prepared with facts concerning the range issues and somehow missed the issue of appointments. I am guessing this falls into the impingement vs infringement distinction.
Jason Flare
NES Member
I would bet most gun shops will not defy the 4 appointments per hour.
Because the state didn't want to let shops open at all. The judge told both sides to submit proposals for letting shops open with restrictions, and if the state hadn't submitted something then the judge may have just accepted the plaintiff's proposal.
So, the state's proposal was accepted, but the state didn't want either proposal to be accepted.
