D
Deleted member 67409
Are you sure about that? I'm pretty sure this case beat summary judgment already and is headed for trial.
So far they've only mentioned surviving a motion to dismiss.
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/MFS June Giveaway ***Keltec SUB2000***
Are you sure about that? I'm pretty sure this case beat summary judgment already and is headed for trial.
If she loses I do think Deleo will cash some big checks from the Cabal and make sure a new AWB is passed in short order which bans everything including 10/22s in scary furniture.
Those chardonnay sipping country club bigots can't stand the unwashed unworthy peasants having rights.
Good point, just checked PACER and you're right.So far they've only mentioned surviving a motion to dismiss.
Thanks. I'll save you some time.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.183678/gov.uscourts.mad.183678.73.0.pdf
Thanks!!! That was pretty prompt. Want a job?
nice job offer, but we all know you folks at comm2a don't get get paid . reminds me to send my annual, albeit some what small check for all you folks do. in the mail this week.
Yup, her office even said this. “The notice worked as designed”, shutting down dealersSpite. The Enforcement Notice was designed to get attention on her so when Clinton became President she'd be considered for US Attorney General. Since those hopes were dashed, she's just drawing this case out as long as possible so as more dealers will be driven out of business due to reduced sales.
It doesn’t matter, your a felon like the rest of us for having them.I really have all the AR and AK's that I need , but I wonder if I should make a spite purchase if this goes our way.
Last Thursday the Commonwealth moved to quash subpoenas issued to four Massachusetts police departments. Deposition were scheduled for today, tomorrow and Thursday, (July 23-25), but the court doesn't appear to have taken any action.
On a related note, we (Comm2A) have until September 23rd to file our cert petition in Worman, our AWB case.
Plaintiffs want to depose the PDs in person. I haven't gone through all the exhibits, so I don't have a clear picture of what they're fishing for. My sense is that they're looking for (among other things) instance where the AGO indicates that the notice wasn't meant to pursue prosecution and that they expect 'voluntary compliance'.I'm not up to speed on all this .
What were the police departments subpoenaed for?
Is the AG's characterization of the narrowed scope of the action correct?Plaintiffs want to depose the PDs in person. I haven't gone through all the exhibits, so I don't have a clear picture of what they're fishing for. My sense is that they're looking for (among other things) instance where the AGO indicates that the notice wasn't meant to pursue prosecution and that they expect 'voluntary compliance'.
I would think the manufacturer does not matter.Are they now trying to say that Springfield Armory M1-A's are not allowed? If so, what about other M1-A manufacturers: Bula Forge, James River Armory, LRB, etc. ?
Thank you .Plaintiffs want to depose the PDs in person. I haven't gone through all the exhibits, so I don't have a clear picture of what they're fishing for. My sense is that they're looking for (among other things) instance where the AGO indicates that the notice wasn't meant to pursue prosecution and that they expect 'voluntary compliance'.
I
If so, what can really be accomplished by this lawsuit at this point?
I can't answer that as Comm2A is not a party to this action. Plaintiff's have until Thursday to file an objection (if any) to the motion to quash.Is the AG's characterization of the narrowed scope of the action correct?
[T]his Court has ruled that this case is limited to the application of the Enforcement Notice on Prohibited Assault Weapons (“Enforcement Notice”) to the firearms identified by the Plaintiffs in the Amended Complaint
[...]
Plaintiffs’ remaining claims only concern application of the Enforcement Notice to the following semi-automatic rifles: (1) the Smith & Wesson M&P 15-22 and other 22 caliber rimfire AR-15 style rifles;2 (2) the Springfield Armory M1A; (3) the IWI Tavor; (4) the Kel-Tec RFB; (5) the FN PS90; (6) the Kel-Tec Sub 2000; and (7) the Berretta CX4 Storm
If so, what can really be accomplished by this lawsuit at this point?
So, at this point the NSSF case is not even about common AR15's???Is the AG's characterization of the narrowed scope of the action correct?
[T]his Court has ruled that this case is limited to the application of the Enforcement Notice on Prohibited Assault Weapons (“Enforcement Notice”) to the firearms identified by the Plaintiffs in the Amended Complaint
[...]
Plaintiffs’ remaining claims only concern application of the Enforcement Notice to the following semi-automatic rifles: (1) the Smith & Wesson M&P 15-22 and other 22 caliber rimfire AR-15 style rifles;2 (2) the Springfield Armory M1A; (3) the IWI Tavor; (4) the Kel-Tec RFB; (5) the FN PS90; (6) the Kel-Tec Sub 2000; and (7) the Berretta CX4 Storm
If so, what can really be accomplished by this lawsuit at this point?
Gotcha, so many cases flying around it's hard to keep them straight.I can't answer that as Comm2A is not a party to this action. Plaintiff's have until Thursday to file an objection (if any) to the motion to quash.
So, at this point the NSSF case is not even about common AR15's???
The case is only about the guns listed above?
At AG FAQ states that those guns are legal...
For the record, it was NOT NSSF that dropped the ball back in 1998ish, it was another org called "American <something or other>" that went out of business many years ago (this info was from Nancy Snow, GOAL Chief of Staff at the time).Maybe somebody should call the NSSF and remind them, so they don't drop the ball like what happened in MA many moons ago.
For the record, it was NOT NSSF that dropped the ball back in 1998ish, it was another org called "American <something or other>" that went out of business many years ago (this info was from Nancy Snow, GOAL Chief of Staff at the time).
I'd say the historical record's not totally clear on that point... The American Shooting Sports Council was the plaintiff in the lawsuit. It was an alternative industry group to NSSF that included Glock and S&W. The NSSF "absorbed" the ASSC in 1999 under murky circumstances, and failed to pursue the lawsuit, leading to its dismissal in April of 2000.For the record, it was NOT NSSF that dropped the ball back in 1998ish, it was another org called "American <something or other>" that went out of business many years ago (this info was from Nancy Snow, GOAL Chief of Staff at the time).
...the Commonwealth moved to quash subpoenas issued to four Massachusetts police departments. Deposition were scheduled for today, tomorrow and Thursday, (July 23-25), but the court doesn't appear to have taken any action. ...