NSSF filed vs AGO!

I'm 3 1/2 minutes in and I'm already impressed by the attorney's quick and cogent responses to the judge's questions.
 
Sorry, I think I got mixed up about which case was which.

Just listened to the Pullman arguments, it sounds like our side pinky promised to not argue that the AG overstepped her authority since that would violate her 11th amendment immunity, but that the federal civil rights and due process claims are fair game.
 
So the state's argument is that they are not self defense because no recorded use but they are military weapons because they have no recorded military use but look like military weapons that do have a recorded use?
 
Forgive my ignorance, but thankfully I have not spent any significant time in the court system and IANAL, with the case being remanded back to DC, does the same judge hear the case that wrote the initial opinion, or is it assigned to a different judge?

***EDIT***
After looking back through the comments, maybe I am confusing the two cases. Pullman was sent back to DC? What about Worman? I listened to the oral arguments, but could draw no conclusion from it.
 
Working through this stuff.

I think it'd be helpful if we put together a list of the mentioned legal guns, their cost, production status, and whether they share features or not.

In essence, all semiautomatic firearms share some sort of feature that's listed by the AG as being a no-go.
 
Basically, the Commonwealth had no business filing this appeal and they ultimately agreed.

Did anyone listen long enough the hear one of the judges telling NSSF's attorney that his daughter should think about med school.

By "Commonwealth", does this mean "Comm2A", or the "Commonwealth of Massachusetts"?
 
I think we had a incorrect link that has fouled things up.

Were the relevant verbal arguments:

A) A 14 minute file of the AG getting raked over the coals on an appeal

B)34 minute debate over heller?
 
I think we had a incorrect link that has fouled things up.

Were the relevant verbal arguments:

A) A 14 minute file of the AG getting raked over the coals on an appeal

B)34 minute debate over heller?
There are two MA AWB-related separate cases at play here filed by different plaintiffs with different causes of action that are at different stages of proceedings. Making it extra confusing, CA1 scheduled the Pullman/NSSF 11th amendment interlocutory appeal for the same day as the Worman appeal hearing, which is why links to both were posted.

The 14-minute clip was related to the interlocutory appeal in the NSSF/Pullman case.
 
There are two MA AWB-related separate cases at play here filed by different plaintiffs with different causes of action that are at different stages of proceedings. Making it extra confusing, CA1 scheduled the Pullman/NSSF 11th amendment interlocutory appeal for the same day as the Worman appeal hearing, which is why links to both were posted.

The 14-minute clip was related to the interlocutory appeal in the NSSF/Pullman case.

Sweet.

I have such a hard time keeping these 2 cases apart without this crap.
 
Now that there is blood in the water, they want to be seen as being on the right side.
Republican Gov. Charlie Baker and his administration wrote letters of concern over perceived ambiguity in the notice, while 58 lawmakers, including 18 Democrats, sent Ms. Healey a letter objecting to her action “in the strongest possible terms.”
When they wrote those letters I thought it was a good thing, probably is, but in reality it was a way for them to put a foot on either side of the line and wait to see who wins. Then claim they supported them from the beginning.
 
Now that there is blood in the water, they want to be seen as being on the right side.

When they wrote those letters I thought it was a good thing, probably is, but in reality it was a way for them to put a foot on either side of the line and wait to see who wins. Then claim they supported them from the beginning.

In addition, it would have been nice for the article to mention that the letters from both Baker and the Legislature demanded a response to specific questions. Healey ignored them. Maybe a follow-up email to the reporter asking "I found the letters mentioned in your article from the legislature, it asks AG Healey to respond to specific questions. I cannot find any actual response, can you investigate if she ever replied?"
 
In addition, it would have been nice for the article to mention that the letters from both Baker and the Legislature demanded a response to specific questions. Healey ignored them. Maybe a follow-up email to the reporter asking "I found the letters mentioned in your article from the legislature, it asks AG Healey to respond to specific questions. I cannot find any actual response, can you investigate if she ever replied?"

The legislators won't do anything.

A. it's in court
B. "because gun"
 
Back
Top Bottom