So What Liability Does the AG's Office and State Have in All This?

Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
7,146
Likes
12,241
Feedback: 24 / 0 / 0
Just thinking out loud here - if the AG's new interpretation of what defines an assault weapon stands then the conclusion would be that the State was not correctly enforcing the laws and allowed us to purchase weapons, etc. that are illegal, right? So what liability does the AG's office and State have? Is a class action lawsuit against the AG's Office/State viable? Healey is essentially saying that the State has not correctly enforced the laws for 18 years and has now left us out to hang because we bought firearms that we assumed the State says was OK to buy (the sales were processed through the State for all these years). Thoughts?
 
They've got no liability.

Comm2A is looking at legal strategies. Let's let them figure out what might or might not work.
 
urge your legislators to draft a recall process for MA.
-for just this reason

my phone calls have involved that conversation as well
 
Just a whole boat load of taxpayer money to respond to, police, enforce, manage and defend in the legislature and court. Anyone know how to estimate that as a yearly cost? It won't be for free.
 
The legislature doesn't give a **** about you. Just got off a long phone conversation with another areas rep because mine can't be bothered to call me back and this guy offered. Better keep the donates to Comm2A up, cause they are our saving grace here.

Mike
 
Exactly one of the points I made in writing my Rep. Let's take her at face value here for a minute and go along with her delusion that these guns were actually banned all along and she's the only one smart enough to figure that out. Every firearm sold in the last 20 years was purchased after a Massachusetts approved back ground check, was taxed by Massachusetts, and was then registered by Massachusetts. If they're all banned wouldn't that then make Massachusetts complicit in the trafficking of "assault weapons"? Including the ones sold under her watch.
She really should prosecute herself.
 
They've got no liability.

Comm2A is looking at legal strategies. Let's let them figure out what might or might not work.

I'm not so sure. Could an argument be made that for the past 22 years that certain state employees, collectively and as individuals, were complicit in the furtherance of a criminal enterprise?? Well, that may be a little thin. I am warming to the notion that the AG's edict HAS diminished the value of my purchases and as such constitutes a taking of property. And we all know that a governmental taking requires compensation.
 
Thinking. If this is allowed to stand by any court, then they would be staying that anything sold during the Federal ban was also illegal.
 
I'm not so sure. Could an argument be made that for the past 22 years that certain state employees, collectively and as individuals, were complicit in the furtherance of a criminal enterprise?? Well, that may be a little thin. I am warming to the notion that the AG's edict HAS diminished the value of my purchases and as such constitutes a taking of property. And we all know that a governmental taking requires compensation.


I believe that sovereign immunity makes it very difficult.
 
I believe that sovereign immunity makes it very difficult.

Maybe with respect to the notion of state criminality and the potential criminality of state actors. I think we are on much more solid footing with a takings/compensation claim, since both our Federal and state constitutions require just compensation for any property taking.
 
Maybe with respect to the notion of state criminality and the potential criminality of state actors. I think we are on much more solid footing with a takings/compensation claim, since both our Federal and state constitutions require just compensation for any property taking.


I dont think we have a strong argument for a taking. (Because guns.)

They made the guns illegal and they can confiscate illegal stuff.
 
I dont think we have a strong argument for a taking. (Because guns.)

They made the guns illegal and they can confiscate illegal stuff.

In a fair and honest courtroom, I'd think you'd have a very strong "ex post facto" case if they tried to confiscate your property without just confiscation, or tried to prosecute you for possession. That was the whole reasoning for them adding the pre-ban language into the original AWB laws.
 
In a fair and honest courtroom, I'd think you'd have a very strong "ex post facto" case if they tried to confiscate your property without just confiscation, or tried to prosecute you for possession. That was the whole reasoning for them adding the pre-ban language into the original AWB laws.

I don't think the argument that this is a taking is going to work here in MA. They've declared the guns illegal and they don't have to compensate people for the confiscation of illegal stuff.

The ex post facto part about not being prosecuted as a felon is much stronger; I don't think they are going to prosecute you as a felon, they're just going to take your stuff. But in taking you're stuff the police are going to be well armed because they're taking guns and gun owning citizens are going to get shot.

I watch how they shoot blacks. To me, that's us
 
sounds like she, in preventing transfer of valuable property we own, is TAKING that property without just compensation. Sounds like MA owes us all at least $2000 per gun plus all legal fees for destruction of our property value. class action suit anyone?.
 
sounds like she, in preventing transfer of valuable property we own, is TAKING that property without just compensation. Sounds like MA owes us all at least $2000 per gun plus all legal fees for destruction of our property value. class action suit anyone?.

Just for the record I believe this is a taking and I would support a lawsuit. I just think because guns this isn't going to fly in MA.

But I would support it financially because at least it's something.
 
The AG has the absolute right to accept any Clinton administration appointment she is offered as a result of this action. So, the liability is being stuck working for a bunch of crooks.
 
Can the AG be subpoenaed by the MA legislature over this?

If the legislature cares enough about her actions, they can just pass a bill to remove her authority to regulate guns. That would be far more productive than bringing her in for a hearing.

Time will tell if the legislature cares to take action.
 
Just for the record I believe this is a taking and I would support a lawsuit. I just think because guns this isn't going to fly in MA.

But I would support it financially because at least it's something.

I don't know a whole lot about law, but since the lawsuit would be against a state agency, wouldn't it need to be in a federal court, where we'd be far more likely to have a judge that isn't a neo-nazi liberal?

Outside of the MA state courts things seem to be different. Even in this state, in a federal court, a criminal was sentenced to death.
 
I don't know a whole lot about law, but since the lawsuit would be against a state agency, wouldn't it need to be in a federal court, where we'd be far more likely to have a judge that isn't a neo-nazi liberal? Outside of the MA state courts things seem to be different. Even in this state, in a federal court, a criminal was sentenced to death.

Comm2a recently got completely screwed in Federal court by judges who used the "guns are bad" legal theory as justification for supporting the AG.
 
Back
Top Bottom