Comm2A, SAF, GOAL and FPC file against Baker admin on shop closures

At least we get a little good press out of today - from the (echhh, cough, cough) Boston Globe:

Federal judge says he will issue order allowing Mass. gun shops to reopen

A federal judge said Thursday he will issue an order allowing gun shops in Massachusetts to reopen, ruling that Governor Charlie Baker’s decision to shutter them along with thousands of other “nonessential” businesses infringed on the Second Amendment rights of those seeking to buy a firearm.

“There’s no justification here,” US District Judge Douglas P. Woodlock said during a two-hour virtual hearing, arguing he doesn’t see a fit “between the goals of the emergency declared by the commonwealth and the burdening of the constitutional rights of the defendants in this narrow area.”

“I have enough information to say, in this very small corner of this emergency, we don’t surrender our constitutional rights,” the judge said. “These plaintiffs . . . have constitutional rights that deserve respect and vindication. And it becomes necessary for a court to do that.”


The decision marks a rare rebuke of Baker’s broad emergency powers amid the COVID-19 pandemic, and a victory for a coalition of gun shops, advocacy groups, and would-be gun owners who had sued Baker last month.

The lawsuit argued that Baker stepped on prospective owners’ constitutional rights when he ordered gun shops to close as part of a sweeping ban on nonessential businesses designed to help stop the spread of COVID-19. The decision, the lawsuit stated, amounted “to a ban on obtaining modern arms for personal defense."

Woodlock said he agreed the order marked a “burdening of Second Amendment rights,” and faulted Baker for providing little public explanation of why he chose to include gun shops among the so-called nonessential businesses he ordered shut.

“When we’re dealing with constitutional rights, some degree of clarity that tells us that it’s necessary, is perhaps a foundational requirement,” Woodlock said.

The judge indicated he’d include a number of restrictions on gun shops when they do reopen in the coming days, including that they operate by appointment only and be limited to four appointments per hour.
 
DrewG8572 said:
There are ~1.5 million LTC holders in MA. Let's say there's 100 firearms stores in MA, open 7 days a week for 12 hours a day at 4 transactions per hour. It would take 45 weeks for every LTC holder to be able to get an appointment. Nope no infringement here.
Click to expand...

The mission here should be to try and reach ALL 1.5 million permit holders and get them, their families, and friend's asses to the polls to vote people OUT of office. Even if just a couple of Nazi's were removed.................MSM won't do it for us, we have to keep forwarding articles and info to those permit holders. It would be great if a couple of ads could get run on TV but that is SO expensive.

Heck, even people who are Democrats must be seeing the over reach not only for 2A, but no surfing by yourself, no beach going, no fishing in the middle of a lake by yourself, no drive-in style church service, even they might start thinking................maybe it's time to vote for something different. This should also be a time to support some "real" conservatives if there are any left or tough enough who can drive ALL of these infringement realities home to the people. Time to get someone to challenge FAKER.
 
Last edited:
67ray said:
From what I heard on the call and written here, I call it a win. We will all be at gun shops Saturday [rockon]

.
Click to expand...
While i considered it a minor win. Many people (me included) wont be at shops to wait in line. Lines will have a negative effect. The state knows this.

Hate to say it and I know there were a lot of shops and people hurt by it.

Most people that have lived here will just continue to use Plan B rather than wait in line for overpriced ammo and guns.
 
Last edited:
Why can't shops follow similar limitations like grocery stores or Home Depot? Limit the occupancy NOT the number of transactions? I have no idea if there are actual capacity limits on gun shops?...
I don't know what's worse (especially financially - which the judge does not care about at this time) limiting transactions or the number of people in the store?

But whatever, it's a done deal.
 
426wedge said:
40 percent on the ranges? My club has over a thousand members, maybe more. So does that mean you can have 400 people there? On a busy day there is nowhere near that. so if this is the case, what does it matter?
Click to expand...


I wondered this myself. Although your range has a thousand members, the facilities are probably not rated for that. For example, a room might be rated to 100 occupants at a time meaning you could have 40 people. When talking about a range, it may have 12 lanes and only 5 at a time could be used or something like that.
 
I know one shop that can do a brisk business with sales consummated inside the store and zero people in the store. Imagine if a certain popular shop with a garage door style loading dock at ground level sets up a table with a cash register and sends runners inside the shop to bring forth non-4473 items and reserves entry into the shop for those buying a gun. It would allow for maximum efficiency, and also avoid the occupancy burden of shoppers mulling over what ammo to buy. Buy putting the table inside the door, the sale takes place in the shop without the buyer ever setting foot in the shop - perhaps just a gloved hand.

As to ranges - the vast majority of ranges are gun clubs and can be open and in compliance by closing all buildings and not allowing the public to use the facilities, even as guests of members. A "range ruling" would have the greatest effect on the few commercial indoor ranges.
 
DrewG8572 said:
There are ~1.5 million LTC holders in MA. Let's say there's 100 firearms stores in MA, open 7 days a week for 12 hours a day at 4 transactions per hour. It would take 45 weeks for every LTC holder to be able to get an appointment. Nope no infringement here.
Click to expand...
If there are 1.5 million LTC holders why is healey the AG?
 
hillman said:
Does this affect ammo sales at Walmart, and does it apply to Cabelas and Bass Pro?
Click to expand...

WM sells Fudd ammo and has all along. TheyDONOT sell handgun ammo WM gets away with selling a lot of fxcking things where Cabelas and Ass Pro got screwed royally like fishing and camping gear and ammo.

Asspro and Cabela’s
I dont see why it wouldnt. Though they willbe opening at limited capacity and might not deem it worthwhile.

Just like Kittery did when they reopethey will have to block off sales of clothes and other “non essential” items.
 
426wedge said:
40 percent on the ranges? My club has over a thousand members, maybe more. So does that mean you can have 400 people there? On a busy day there is nowhere near that. so if this is the case, what does it matter?
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing. If a range has 12 lanes, does that mean only five can be used, or does that mean since the official capacity of the range is something like 30 (12 shooting, 12 scoring, 12 waiting their turn, or whatever) then 40% of that is 12 people?

And mostly I don't see the ranges at either of the clubs I'm a member filled to more than 50% capacity anyway, even before the apocalypse.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
As to ranges - the vast majority of ranges are gun clubs and can be open and in compliance by closing all buildings and not allowing the public to use the facilities, even as guests of members. A "range ruling" would have the greatest effect on the few commercial indoor ranges.
Click to expand...

This. A gun club is private land owned by the members of the club. Its each members “back yard”.

As such the states own lawyer said we can practice in our “back yards”. So we are fully good. She said it in the case so its obvious its OK

Nothing public, no indoor, no guests. No buildings open. Maintain distancing. Good to go.

If your outdoor range was shut down you should be asking the state or town to refund your membership and tax money the club paid the town.
 
Last edited:
DrewG8572 said:
Wallace sees the increasing number of gun licenses in Massachusetts as a slow return to how things were before a major legislative overhaul of gun laws in 1998 banned large-capacity magazines and made obtaining a license more difficult. He said there were more than 1.2 million licensed gun owners in the state before the legislation and a little more than 200,000 after.
www.patriotledger.com

As debate over gun control wears on, more and more South Shore residents are getting licensed

In 20 communities south of Boston, the number of licenses issued from 2013 to 2018 was almost 50 percent higher than the number issued in the six years
www.patriotledger.com www.patriotledger.com
Click to expand...

Are you equating "people who have guns" with "LTC holders"? 'cuz the 1.2M -> 200k change in ’98 would suggest that there were 1M gun owners who were NOT LTC holders.

And... "sees the increasing number of..." is not the same as "are".

I just don't see the total number of CURRENT LTC holders in Mass being as high as 700k.

I'd love to see data that proves me wrong though. More is better.
 
Bladerunner said:
Never forget:

“Gun shops and shooting ranges are NOT essential businesses during a public health emergency. We cannot undermine the safety of our police officers, first responders, and domestic violence victims.”
Click to expand...
Such an asinine statement, it is almost unbelievable. Considering the fact that liquor stores have been deemed essential, and the fact that boozed up people are often a danger to police officers, first responders, and those in domestic violence situations, we can see that this is not about protecting those demographics at all. It’s sick.
 
Last edited:
milktree said:
I was thinking the same thing. If a range has 12 lanes, does that mean only five can be used, or does that mean since the official capacity of the range is something like 30 (12 shooting, 12 scoring, 12 waiting their turn, or whatever) then 40% of that is 12 people?

And mostly I don't see the ranges at either of the clubs I'm a member filled to more than 50% capacity anyway, even before the apocalypse.
Click to expand...
I would think that only 40% of the shooting stations in the club could be open for social distancing purposes, and a similar percentage of total capacity could be used to keep folks six feet apart while they wait their turn? I know someone saw a 5/12 hearing scheduled, hopefully we can get an idea then. Got a few new pistols just before this cluster hit, and am dying to shoot.
 
Obviously the state is going to be watching gun stores to make sure that they adhere to the restrictions. Does it make any legal sense to have a number of us stop by the location of a gun store and sign affidavit that on such and such a date visited a gun store and was unable to enter because of the four appointments per our transaction. We could document us being at the gun shop parking lot by picture it would be evidence that we are being infringed just a thought
 
milktree said:
I just don't see the total number of CURRENT LTC holders in Mass being as high as 700k.

I'd love to see data that proves me wrong though. More is better.
Click to expand...

someone posted a page or two ago that ~700K is the right number, nowhere near 1.5Mil
 
LTC holders vs active and engaged LTC holders is a big gap. We could barely get 1000 of them to show up to protest 07/20/16. How many LTC holders are members of GOAL? How many have even heard of Comm2A(or the peacock 2A attorney who is claiming victory on FB)?

milktree said:
Are you equating "people who have guns" with "LTC holders"? 'cuz the 1.2M -> 200k change in ’98 would suggest that there were 1M gun owners who were NOT LTC holders.

And... "sees the increasing number of..." is not the same as "are".

I just don't see the total number of CURRENT LTC holders in Mass being as high as 700k.

I'd love to see data that proves me wrong though. More is better.
Click to expand...
 
milktree said:
Are you equating "people who have guns" with "LTC holders"? 'cuz the 1.2M -> 200k change in ’98 would suggest that there were 1M gun owners who were NOT LTC holders.

And... "sees the increasing number of..." is not the same as "are".

I just don't see the total number of CURRENT LTC holders in Mass being as high as 700k.

I'd love to see data that proves me wrong though. More is better.
Click to expand...

My guess is that this figure includes a lot of FID holders? The number seems high to me too, but I'm just going by the Jim Wallace quote (whether correct or not). Regardless, the point is that it's gonna be a real bitch to get an appointment given the current demand.
 
Mark from MA said:
While i considered it a minor win. Many people (me included) wont be at shops to wait in line. Lines will have a negative effect. The state knows this.

Hate to say it and I know there were a lot of shops and people hurt by it.

Most people that have lived here will just continue to use Plan B rather than wait in line for overpriced ammo and guns.
Click to expand...

The biggest deal here is that there are a bunch of people with guns trapped at dealers right now that will actually be able to get them.

-Mike
 
I have written on this forum before that people are usually off the mark if they think we are going to just "win it in the courts." Courts typically don't issue broad, sweeping decisions. Instead, they nibble at the margins, decide only that which needs to be decided, and defer what can be deferred. This isn't true only in gun cases -- it's true much of the time, and particularly true in cases like this one that seek injunctive relief, which under the law is viewed as an extraordinary remedy to begin with. That's why it's so important to stop legislation before it happens (when possible, of course; it wasn't possible here because Baker acted by emergency fiat).

Some are disappointed that this judge didn't go as far as we all would have liked. That's understandable, but it rarely works that way, and not just in gun cases.

In my view, any day that the State is rebuked on a gun rights case is a good day. And today's decision came from a judge sitting in Massachusetts! That's a rare day indeed.
 

Similar threads

Brief Update on GOAL Litigation
Replies
1
Views
159
jek
jek
DOJ Files Charges against State of NY, Hochul, James, and NY DMV head
Replies
11
Views
434
peter_nh
P
MA Liberals on Reddit Need Firearms and 2A To Defend Against Mean Tweets
5 6 7
Replies
185
Views
5K
Junior314
Junior314
Verdict against Sig Sauer
Replies
11
Views
473
Tartakovsky
Tartakovsky
GOAL Issues Warning to Non-residents
Replies
16
Views
581
Road_Clam
R
Back
Top Bottom