• 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.

Lawsuit against MA AWB

Mesatchornug said:
I could have been clearer. I agree that the point is to do away with weapon bans. I like your phrasing as opposed to his. I was just saying we could skip the paragraph altogether, make the rest of the argument against the ban, and simply refer to them as so-called.

That said, I think your method makes a stronger argument against banning, while mine really exists to attack the assault weapon term.
Click to expand...
Understand your point now
That paragraph makes them sound like a petulant child mad that he didn't get a long enough turn on the swing.

No judge wants an emotional pissing match in their court and because guns we need to present a level headed facts based position devoid of any emotion even if we know the state's case will be purely emotional dribble.
 
pastera said:
Understand your point now
That paragraph makes them sound like a petulant child mad that he didn't get a long enough turn on the swing.

No judge wants an emotional pissing match in their court and because guns we need to present a level headed facts based position devoid of any emotion even if we know the state's case will be purely emotional dribble.
Click to expand...
I'd almost let it slide if it was only the one paragraph. When he duplicated it for magazines, was what really made it a tantrum (to me).

In the end, I agree. As an attorney, one is supposed to be a zealous advocate for their client. As such, we need to stick will pure, rational arguments. This is not the time or place to whine about what meanies the State has been...
 
A lot of Negative Nancy going on here. It's 100% normal to define a term in a lawsuit, such as "Banned Firearm" in paragraph 13. Perhaps saying "refuses" was an unnecessary term, but that doesn't change the outcome.

The case is that it's not constitutional to ban firearms that are in common use. They have to be both "dangerous" *and* "unusual" to be banned. I would argue that even an M4 is not unusual. To the degree that it is, it is only due to them being restricted. I do wish these cases wouldn't throw full auto under the bus in an attempt to save semi-auto. We should have access to both.

AR15 and Glock are two of the most common firearms made, as are 17 and 30 round magazines. That is a fact, and I am not sure what an activist judge could come up with to get around that - even assuming a Bush-appointed judge would be activist. Paragraph 22 is pure gold - saying that "large capacity" magazines are actually standard capacity. I wish more gun owners would realize that. For how many years has CDNN sold standard capacity magazines as "high caps?"
 
Last edited:
Organization I honestly had never heard of, which claims to have 4.5 million members, decides to simultaneously file new suits in four different U.S. circuits. Was this based simply on winning a federal preliminary injunction for a case in their home state of CO or an established plan?

It is now four months later and I am non-the-wiser as to who, if anyone, they may be coordinating with or have conferred with from the established 2A litigation community here. Has there been any outreach by this organization to local gun owners? I mean I am willing to financially support a suit with promise but you at least have to make some form of informative appeal when you have no history here.

I obviously wish for the best, but I also worry that this is a four district fishing expedition by a niche outside group and we are the bait. Am I totally off base?


[pot] Full disclosure I am stirring this pot because I am a little bored at the moment and talking about a potential MA AWB suit is a bit like me with the 1968 Sears catalog dreaming of cool stuff I probably would never own.


🐯
 
CatSnoutSoup said:
Organization I honestly had never heard of, which claims to have 4.5 million members, decides to simultaneously file new suits in four different U.S. circuits. Was this based simply on winning a federal preliminary injunction for a case in their home state of CO or an established plan?

It is now four months later and I am non-the-wiser as to who, if anyone, they may be coordinating with or have conferred with from the established 2A litigation community here. Has there been any outreach by this organization to local gun owners? I mean I am willing to financially support a suit with promise but you at least have to make some form of informative appeal when you have no history here.

I obviously wish for the best, but I also worry that this is a four district fishing expedition by a niche outside group and we are the bait. Am I totally off base?


[pot] Full disclosure I am stirring this pot because I am a little bored at the moment and talking about a potential MA AWB suit is a bit like me with the 1968 Sears catalog dreaming of cool stuff I probably would never own.


🐯
Click to expand...
I looked into this group a few years ago and passed. Dudley Brown has made a lot of enemies. When I looked into the group it was feuding with the Second Amendment Foundation because they accused NAGR of spreading false stories. I don't know but there were quite a few cases where several gun rights groups were ticked off with NAGR.
 
Lank said:
Sorry, legal illiterate person here. Motion does what?
Click to expand...
In the context of this case: the Plaintiffs moved (or filed a motion) for injunctive relief. A Motion is a request of the court. The Plaintiffs are seeking to enjoin, or prohibit, the state from enforcing their AWB and LCM bans. The reality is this has zero chance of success because the courts typically look to maintain a status quo when considering injunctive relief. Regardless of where this case may land in the future, such as the Supreme Court, the court will consider the Plaintiffs chances of success with the case in chief, the potential harm caused by granting the injunction (Freedom Week), and the potential harm caused by not granting the injunction (simply maintaining the status quo). The court will see that there is no harm by denying the injunction and that, in their view, the case has little chance at success.
 
eboos said:
In the context of this case: the Plaintiffs moved (or filed a motion) for injunctive relief. A Motion is a request of the court. The Plaintiffs are seeking to enjoin, or prohibit, the state from enforcing their AWB and LCM bans. The reality is this has zero chance of success because the courts typically look to maintain a status quo when considering injunctive relief. Regardless of where this case may land in the future, such as the Supreme Court, the court will consider the Plaintiffs chances of success with the case in chief, the potential harm caused by granting the injunction (Freedom Week), and the potential harm caused by not granting the injunction (simply maintaining the status quo). The court will see that there is no harm by denying the injunction and that, in their view, the case has little chance at success.
Click to expand...
Thanks. So we remain infringed
 
eboos said:
the court will consider the Plaintiffs chances of success with the case in chief, the potential harm caused by granting the injunction (Freedom Week), and the potential harm caused by not granting the injunction (simply maintaining the status quo). The court will see that there is no harm by denying the injunction
Click to expand...
Status quo = civil rights violation?
denying injunction = denying civil rights?

How is this "no harm"?
 
eboos said:
Do you really want me to justify it from the perspective of an anti?
Click to expand...

Drix said:
State has already decided there is no harm here so they simply don't see it that way.
Click to expand...

I've read multiple times here on NES, how this is what they did with other civil rights laws in the 60's and 70's; and it is only a matter of time before it turns around with this as well.
 
Coyote33 said:
I've read multiple times here on NES, how this is what they did with other civil rights laws in the 60's and 70's; and it is only a matter of time before it turns around with this as well.
Click to expand...
It will turn around, but not by the US District Court of Massachusetts, nor in the First Circuit.
 
How does the impending doom of HD4420 affect this AWB lawsuit if MA enacts this horrible bill with an increased AWB ban? Does a new lawsuit have to be filed to include the new and improved AWB ban?
 

Similar threads

Supreme Court Hears Texas Gun Store Owner’s Lawsuit Against Bump Stock Ban
2 3
Replies
87
Views
2K
HorizontalHunter
HorizontalHunter
VA Governor Youngkin vetoes AWB
Replies
2
Views
168
Reptile
Reptile
MA compliant uppers - in Mil or shipped to MA
2
Replies
30
Views
860
Lxpony
Lxpony
Yesterday Was The 10 Year Anniversary Of The Bundy Family Cattle Ranch Standoff Against The BLM
Replies
4
Views
241
Matt_SERE
Matt_SERE
‘Unconstitutional’: DOJ Announces Red Flag Center For Gun-Grab Operation Against Americans
Replies
16
Views
614
Nick Fury
Nick Fury
Back
Top Bottom