• 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.

More Linsky Nonsense

We have 4 pages of results for threads with “Linsky” in the title going back at least a decade. Has this f***ing loser ever actually landed a punch on us with one of his bills?
 
I posted this earlier this week, there is also a bill to tax guns and ammo by 36% by the Amherst representative

www.northeastshooters.com

Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

New linsky bill t9 ban carry in “sensitive “ places. Basically a ripoff of NY and NJ. bans carry pretty much everywhere https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD2808 The rep from Amherst has a bill with a 36% tax on gun and ammo to fun some health fund.
www.northeastshooters.com www.northeastshooters.com
 
“ Show me on the doll where they touched you”, linsky quote on “ Sensitive places”
 
Imagine being told you are a committing a felony by legally ccw in such a place as a restaurant or mall. F UCK OFF. Those are such soft targets that you would have to be a moron for not protecting yourself and your family in such a place. Does he think that will automatically make them safer places? Nope, just the opposite. How many thugs are in South Shore Plaza on a given Friday night?
 
paul73 said:
so, the same as rest of neighbor states just did. makes sense, as, f#ck scotus, and let`s just enforce whatever it is we want.
Click to expand...

NY passed a similar law as to what linsky is proposing (linsky likely just copy and pasted NYs bill). 2 federal judges blocked much of NYs law but the 2nd circuit puts a stay on those rulings while they hear NYs appeal of the TRO in March. The stay is a procedural thing and not a big deal. In NJ the district court judge put a TRO on their law, NJ appealed that to the 3rd circuit, they have not taken any action yet. No other state in the country has pass any “sensitive “ place restrictions

There are proposals in Massachusetts, Hawaii, California, Maryland etc but a proposal is a LONG way from a signed law. These thing will all play out in court over the next few years, be patient
 
Hoover said:
NY passed a similar law as to what linsky is proposing (linsky likely just copy and pasted NYs bill). 2 federal judges blocked much of NYs law but the 2nd circuit puts a stay on those rulings while they hear NYs appeal of the TRO in March. The stay is a procedural thing and not a big deal. In NJ the district court judge put a TRO on their law, NJ appealed that to the 3rd circuit, they have not taken any action yet. No other state in the country has pass any “sensitive “ place restrictions

There are proposals in Massachusetts, Hawaii, California, Maryland etc but a proposal is a LONG way from a signed law. These thing will all play out in court over the next few years, be patient
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm just reading the wrong news reports and watching the wrong videos, but SCOTUS does not seem very interested in backing up its Bruen decision with any further clarifications, slapdowns or rulings. If true, this is going to let the lefty anti states continue to run wild with new crazy laws that actually run counter to Bruen. As you point out, eventual resolution in our favor on any of these could be years away. Got to admit (yet again) that I am not very hopeful. :(
 
EJFudd said:
Maybe I'm just reading the wrong news reports and watching the wrong videos, but SCOTUS does not seem very interested in backing up its Bruen decision with any further clarifications, slapdowns or rulings. If true, this is going to let the lefty anti states continue to run wild with new crazy laws that actually run counter to Bruen. As you point out, eventual resolution in our favor on any of these could be years away. Got to admit (yet again) that I am not very hopeful. :(
Click to expand...

The district court ruling in NJ was to block various aspects of NJs law, if the 3rd circuit panel refuses to stay the TRO, if NJ appeals to SCOTUS, they’ll refuse to intervene there too. These decisions by the district courts are on TROs and preliminary injunctions, they are not rulings in the merits. SCOTUS almost never gets involved in situations like this, they allow the lower courts to resolve things.

In NY two district court judges issued TROs and the 2nd circuit stayed those and set a date FTO hear NYs appeal of those TROs which is the 3rd week of March. SCOTUS is allowing the 2nd to hear that appeal, after the 2nd issues a ruling the loser could appeal to SCOTUS.


A denial by SCOTUS to hear anything should not be taken as SCOTUS doesn’t want to intervene nor that SCOTUS agrees with the lower court. Denying an appeal at a very early stage is extremely common. People need to relax, these case won’t be settled in a month, it’s going to take 18-24 months to have finality or near finality.
 
This bill is modeled after new laws in New York and New Jersey. . . which will be voided by federal courts in the next 12 months.
Click to expand...

At least I fixed it for them. :)

It's not about his hatred of guns or him restricting rights. This is about him pandering to his base. He KNOWS his laws, if passed, will get kicked. It's irrelevant. He can show that he's a liberal champion who defends the poor defenseless mASSashoozians.
 
Hoover said:
The stay is a procedural thing and not a big deal.
Click to expand...
not sure if serious, as police in NY and NJ is actively enforcing those regulations, and those 'laws' are now pretty much a part of life. and not going anywhere in any future, i bet, no matter what scotus decides.

like we used to say - they gonna kick you in your face, not into your passport. or, constitution, in this case.
 
Hoover said:
The district court ruling in NJ was to block various aspects of NJs law, if the 3rd circuit panel refuses to stay the TRO, if NJ appeals to SCOTUS, they’ll refuse to intervene there too. These decisions by the district courts are on TROs and preliminary injunctions, they are not rulings in the merits. SCOTUS almost never gets involved in situations like this, they allow the lower courts to resolve things.

In NY two district court judges issued TROs and the 2nd circuit stayed those and set a date FTO hear NYs appeal of those TROs which is the 3rd week of March. SCOTUS is allowing the 2nd to hear that appeal, after the 2nd issues a ruling the loser could appeal to SCOTUS.

A denial by SCOTUS to hear anything should not be taken as SCOTUS doesn’t want to intervene nor that SCOTUS agrees with the lower court. Denying an appeal at a very early stage is extremely common. People need to relax, these case won’t be settled in a month, it’s going to take 18-24 months to have finality or near finality.
Click to expand...
TRO's in other states are interesting, sometimes encouraging and fun to point out for sure, but I am in Massachusetts and it's Massachusetts that I care about in regard to what the MA legislature has planned for us. Trying to think like a Godless anti-2A DimocRAT state rep or state senator, these TRO's in other states wouldn't mean a whole lot to me and certainly wouldn't stop me from passing plenty of new anti-gun law provisions completely contrary to Bruen. We have to keep up with NY and NJ after all... and even go beyond NY and NJ if we are to keep our reputation as the most anti-2A state in the northeast. :(
 

Similar threads

Buying more than one firearm
2
Replies
43
Views
1K
Rob Boudrie
Rob Boudrie
Washington Transfers Seized Firearms to Ukraine as House GOP Continues Opposition to More Funding
Replies
7
Views
130
Animal357
A
New Orleans Police Chief Pushes More Gun-Free Zones — Where Tourists Can’t Be Armed for Self-Defense
Replies
21
Views
319
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
Thousands more gun dealers must run background checks on buyers as Biden administration moves to close 'doggone dangerous' loophole
Replies
4
Views
185
AJK129
AJK129
i'm really liking those new snake guns more and more that KAG is showing.
Replies
17
Views
782
walter62
walter62
Back
Top Bottom