I don't think anyone can actually list something the NRA has done in this state besides ask for more money from us.
Really? Here is a listing of litigation activities they were involved in from 2018 or so. I know you would rather whine and don't want to be confused by the facts though. Sorry.
MASSACHUSETTS
Gould v. Morgan (formerly Gould v. O’Leary)
This challenge to Massachusetts restrictions on the carrying of firearms in public was filed on February 4, 2016. Massachusetts requires a license to carry firearms in public, which may be granted only upon demonstration of a “good reason,” and it delegates to local licensing authorities the power to require the showing of a heightened need for self-defense before issuance of a license to carry. Cross- motions for summary judgment were filed in 2017. In December 2017, the district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. The plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Oral argument occurred on July 25, 2018. On November 2, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled adversely, upholding the “good reason” restriction under intermediate scrutiny. A petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court has been filed.
Granby Bow & Gun Club, Inc., et al v. Town of Granby Zoning Board of Appeals, et al
Granby Bow & Gun Club, Inc., is a not-for-profit corporation, founded in the 1940s, and operates a rifle, pistol, and archery shooting range on approximately 260 acres of land that it owns in Granby, Mass. The range predates any enacted zoning ordinances. In the spring of 2017, some property owners near the range began a public campaign to shut down the club. After the building inspector stepped down in September 2017, the Town of Granby’s Board of Selectman took over those duties and acted on three letter complaints against the applicant. The letter complaints alleged noise nuisance, safety and zoning law violations. The Board of Selectman issued a cease and desist letter ordering that the applicant immediately “cease and desist using its rifle range shooting shed and cease shooting at 1,000 yard targets from its upper firing area on the rifle range.” The applicant was not given an opportunity to be heard prior to the Board of Selectman’s action. The applicant appealed to the Granby Zoning Board of Appeals. In November 2017, the Zoning Board of Appeals upheld the Board of Selectmen’s decision. There were no public hearings or deliberations prior to the Zoning Board of Appeals issuing its ruling. The Zoning Board of Appeals did not hear or review any evidence supporting the three complaint letters other than a few aerial photos provided by the Board of Selectmen’s. On January 5, 2018, the applicant appealed to the Massachusetts Land Court (Hampshire County). The issues presented include: 1: [W]hether the ZBA can eliminate vested constitutionally protected property rights that predate zoning via a pretextual zoning enforcement action; and 2: [W]hether range opponents can circumvent the protections afforded ranges by the Massachusetts Range Protection Act via a pretextual zoning enforcement action. At the judge’s urging, the applicant and the Town have entered into a stipulation to attempt to resolve the dispute through permits, while preserving all rights to move forward with the appeal. The court approved the stipulation and remanded the case to the ZBA. The parties failed to resolve the dispute. The parties’ status reports are due on November 16, 2018. The applicant will request a status conference with the judge to discuss bifurcating the issues and moving forward with the 2010 permit issue on appeal immediately while the parties continue to attempt to resolve the upper firing area permit by hearing on the pending application.
Pullman Arms, Inc., et al v. Healy
On July 20, 2016, in an editorial in the Boston Globe, State Attorney General Maura Healy announced for the first time a radical reinterpretation of Massachusetts’ long standing gun ban that mirrors the 1994 Clinton federal gun ban and that had been on the books in Massachusetts for approximately 20 years. She unilaterally declared almost every semiautomatic firearm on the market to be illegal under Massachusetts law. Suit was filed in the United States Distinct Court for the District of Massachusetts on September 22, 2016, by the National Shooting Sports Foundation. The lawsuit challenges the reinterpretation of Massachusetts’ long standing gun ban. On November 22, 2016, Massachusetts filed a motion to dismiss. The motion was heard in April 2017. On March 14, 2018, the Massachusetts’s motion to dismiss was denied. Massachusetts filed an appeal from the District Court’s rejection of its Eleventh Amendment claim with the United States Circuit Court for the First Circuit.
Worman, et al v. Healy, et al
On July 20, 2016, in an editorial in the Boston Globe, State Attorney General Maura Healy announced for the first time a radical reinterpretation of Massachusetts’ long standing gun ban that mirrors the 1994 Clinton federal gun ban and that had been on the books in Massachusetts for approximately 20 years. She unilaterally declared almost every semiautomatic firearm on the market to be illegal under Massachusetts law. On January 23, 2017, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court, Massachusetts. The state filed an answer on March 16, 2017. The defendants asserted Eleventh Amendment defenses of immunity from suit as part of their answer. Written discovery has been exchanged. Certain defendants—the Governor of Massachusetts, Massachusetts State Police, and Superintendent McKeon of the Massachusetts State Police—moved to dismiss on July 14, 2017, and moved to stay discovery against them on July 17, 2017. Other defendants—Attorney General and Secretary of Office of Public Safety—did not move to dismiss or stay discovery. The plaintiff’s counsel dropped the Governor without discovery, and dropped Massachusetts State Police, but noticed its deposition, and opposed the motions with respect to Superintendent McKeon. Plaintiffs took the depositions of representative witnesses from the Executive Office of Public Safety, the Massachusetts State Police, and the Office of the Attorney General. Plaintiffs also took the depositions of the fact witnesses identified the defendants in their interrogatories. Fact discovery ended on September 15, 2017, and the defendants have withheld nearly all internal communications, claiming privilege. The parties took depositions of each other’s expert witnesses. Expert discovery closed November 20, 2017. On April 6, 2018, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts upheld Massachusetts ban. ILA Litigation Counsel informed as follows: “After discovery, on cross-motions for summary judgment, Judge Young granted Defendants summary judgment on the Second Amendment and vagueness claims and dismissed the retroactivity claim as unripe. The Court held that the firearms and magazines banned by Massachusetts are outside the protection of the Second Amendment, largely following the Kolbe decision. The Court held that commonality is not a relevant issue in a Second Amendment analysis, and that the proper test for whether a firearm is protected is whether it is “most useful in military service.” Plaintiffs appealed to the First Circuit. Briefs were filed by October 5, 2018. Oral argument occurred on January 1, 2019 and a decision is expected in the second quarter of 2019. Worman, et al v. Healey, et al This is a Law Enforcement Amicus Brief. Seven organizations consisting of law enforcement personnel, or which support law enforcement, participated in the brief. Consent to file the amicus brief was obtained from all parties. On August 29, 2018, the law enforcement amicus brief was filed with the First Circuit. On September 20, 2018, the First Circuit granted the motion for leave to file the amicus brief.