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 April Giveaway ***Smith & Wesson SD9VE 9MM***

Reply to thread

Message

The way I read it is, the court neutered the case but allowed it to proceed in a limited manner:

"Court issued a decision on March, 2018 which allowed the case to proceed. In its order, the Court decided that the plaintiffs could not bring a facial vagueness challenge to the notice, meaning that the potential relief would be limited only to whether the notice was too vague to apply to the firearms listed in the complaint "

Thus, after that point, effectively constraining the entire thing to the handful of guns mentioned specifically in the body of the complaint, like Tavor, .22 LR AR clones, M1A/MK14 blah blah. In other words, stuff that most people are already selling at this point but the plaintiffs were unsure about selling because the AG never answered their questions.

-Mike

<blockquote data-quote="drgrant" data-source="post: 6522557" data-attributes="member: 859">The way I read it is,&nbsp; the court neutered the case but allowed it to proceed in a limited manner:&quot;Court issued a decision on March, 2018 which allowed the case to proceed. In its order, the Court decided that the plaintiffs could not bring a facial vagueness challenge to the notice, meaning that the potential relief would be limited only to whether the notice was too vague to apply to the firearms listed in the complaint &quot;Thus,&nbsp; after that point, effectively constraining the entire thing to the handful of guns mentioned specifically in the body of the complaint,&nbsp; like Tavor,&nbsp; .22 LR AR clones,&nbsp;&nbsp; M1A/MK14 blah blah.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; In other words, stuff that most people are already selling at this point but the plaintiffs were unsure about selling because the AG never answered their questions.&nbsp; &nbsp; -Mike</blockquote>

[QUOTE="drgrant, post: 6522557, member: 859"] The way I read it is, the court neutered the case but allowed it to proceed in a limited manner: "Court issued a decision on March, 2018 which allowed the case to proceed. In its order, the Court decided that the plaintiffs could not bring a facial vagueness challenge to the notice, meaning that the potential relief would be limited only to whether the notice was too vague to apply to the firearms listed in the complaint " Thus, after that point, effectively constraining the entire thing to the handful of guns mentioned specifically in the body of the complaint, like Tavor, .22 LR AR clones, M1A/MK14 blah blah. In other words, stuff that most people are already selling at this point but the plaintiffs were unsure about selling because the AG never answered their questions. -Mike [/QUOTE]

Verification