Worman v. Baker (MA AWB) Oral Arguments 1-9-2019

Boston4567 said:
I think this makes a lot of sense. The court is always deeply concerned with its own legitimacy. Suddenly deciding a ton of gun cases in one term, right after Kavanaugh's appointment, with decisions released during an extremely contentious presidential election year, is playing a dangerous game.

Best to move the needle more slowly, over a longer period. If the left is ascendant after the 2020 election, they're sure to pass some full retard gun laws that will be ripe to be struck down. Best to lay the groundwork for that now, rather than immediately make a bunch of strong rulings that will cause pushback in the political sphere. If they let the left lead with their stupid laws and/or executive orders after 2020, there will be very strong political pushback against it, and the court can be seen as following public opinion to some degree rather than leading it.
Click to expand...

The very FACT that there are so many similar cases being escalated on this issue right now says a lot about the situation in the country.
 
fshalor said:
The very FACT that there are so many similar cases being escalated on this issue right now says a lot about the situation in the country.
Click to expand...
The shadow docket is about 12 deep right now. Today's orders list is out and we have our first denial of cert: Lopez v. Mass - a burden shifing criminal case from Massachusetts.

There will be a good table tracking all these petitions on the new Comm2A website.
 
PappyM3 said:
Well, if you want to strictly follow the “capable of firing a round” aspect of the FA10 registration, you really only need one upper, one set of lower parts, and a couple nights at the workbench. Make one gun, FA10 it. Swap parts to the next lower, FA10 it, and repeat. There is nothing in the law about keeping an FA10ed firearm capable of firing a shot.
Click to expand...
Actually, a glock upper will do it. Very easy to make a popsicle stick and pencil trigger that will turn a completed slide into a very high quality single shot zip gun.
 
Dench said:
Theres zero chance they will see this case. SCOTUS's strategy has been to see the stupidest most niche 2A cases possible so they can pretend they are keeping an eye on 2A. Then all the actual legit shit that needs to be heard gets brushed aside.

Looking at you NYC case coming up. Complete waste of f***ing time compared to the real shit going down. Scotus will hear it, be proud that it hear its occasional gun case and then continue to deny all the other cases.

Even if we win NYC we lost big time by wasting our time on bullshit.
Click to expand...
And if our side wins the NYC case, expect some dicta or perhaps even a finding about the restriction on anything except unloaded locked case outside the home being Heller compliant.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
And if our side wins the NYC case, expect some dicta or perhaps even a finding about the restriction on anything except unloaded locked case outside the home being Heller compliant.
Click to expand...

I hope so. I'm very pessimistic about the (R) justices and their lack of conviction regarding 2A federally. They will be the 1st to hammer in some draconian police state case law and subsequently dodge the next (R) case which would be a good gun ruling.

I wish I had the optimism and I really hope I'm wrong.
 
Bringing this back on topic, Healey has filed for a 45-day extension of her deadline for filing a response to petitioners' request for cert. Petitioners have assented, which makes it sound like this is a legit request for an extension (because SCOTUS filings are a lot of work and her office is swamped) and not a mere dilatory tactic.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...FINAL Motion for Extension of Time on BIO.pdf
 
rivet_42 said:
Bringing this back on topic, Healey has filed for a 45-day extension of her deadline for filing a response to petitioners' request for cert. Petitioners have assented, which makes it sound like this is a legit request for an extension (because SCOTUS filings are a lot of work and her office is swamped) and not a mere dilatory tactic.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-404/119829/20191022142040556_FINAL Motion for Extension of Time on BIO.pdf
Click to expand...

It is more likely that her office didn’t start her response as they never thought it would be heard.

Bob
 
Dench said:
In the age of the antis trying to ban SKS's under AWBs theres bigger fish to fry right now. The "you can own these guns for X arbitrary reasons" case law is not currently in our favor and at this rate isnt going to be.

Just wait till our case here in MA gets to SCOTUS and they say no thanks. It's a case that would be impossible to lose in SCOTUS short of them refusing to hear it. Which is what they are going to do since they are getting their freebie 2A case out of the NYC challenge.

Instead of striking down arbitrary bans we are striking down NYC's games. Ones a lot more important than the other.

SCOTUS has been going way out of its way to avoid legit 2A cases. It mailed it in with Heller with "common use" whatever the f*** that means (because AR15s are the most common rifle sold yet apparently still fail to qualify under every court that hears this), and then onto Caetano which said if the gun didnt exist 9,000 years ago it's still covered under the 2A. And here we are back again with states still banning guns arbitrarily for looking to killy, etc.

They refuse to define what common is, what an authorized bearable arm is, etc. They just use vauge language that gives enough space for hostile courts to abuse.
Click to expand...

I think you are getting a bit ahead of things.

would-you-just-take-it-easy-man-meme.jpg





Rob Boudrie said:
And if our side wins the NYC case, expect some dicta or perhaps even a finding about the restriction on anything except unloaded locked case outside the home being Heller compliant.
Click to expand...

Are "some dicta" or "a finding" good things or bad things?
 
rivet_42 said:
Bringing this back on topic, Healey has filed for a 45-day extension of her deadline for filing a response to petitioners' request for cert. Petitioners have assented, which makes it sound like this is a legit request for an extension (because SCOTUS filings are a lot of work and her office is swamped) and not a mere dilatory tactic.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-404/119829/20191022142040556_FINAL Motion for Extension of Time on BIO.pdf
Click to expand...
Well, the more interesting aspect of this request is she plans on responding. It's not required that she respond.
 
drgrant said:
Roberts dissented on Abramski though, which is a better than usual sign. That case got f***ed by Kennedy.

-Mike
Click to expand...
He did, but I am not sure that's anything more than Kennedy was taking one for the team so it freed him up to not. Abramski was a good example of SCOTUS dropping a turd in the punch bowl because they didn't think the legislature would fix the problem. They really didn't want to blow up NICS because they didn't think Congress would fix it. Hence Kennedy and Kagan being the key players there. They all knew that case was a turd. They even made a comment how rare the issue was.
 
terraformer said:
He had a busy week.
Here is Comm2A's brief in this case.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-404/120365/20191025163113453_19-404 Brief of Amicus Curiae Commonwealth Second Amendment.pdf
And I have already decided we will be changing the name of the proposed objective test to "Discrete Action, Distinct Effect". I never liked discriminate but could never think of something better until tonight, after we filed the brief of course.
Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of the discrete test proposed. Not at all. I find this argument far more harmful to our cause than helpful. I would especially note that flashbangs are EXCELLENT self defense weapons. If I was sleeping in my bed and someone broke into my house, throwing a flashbang where they are would be preferable to just engaging the intruder.
 
xtry51 said:
I'm not a fan of the discrete test proposed. Not at all. I find this argument far more harmful to our cause than helpful. I would especially note that flashbangs are EXCELLENT self defense weapons. If I was sleeping in my bed and someone broke into my house, throwing a flashbang where they are would be preferable to just engaging the intruder.
Click to expand...
We need to work within the structure we have been given. You want flash bangs sold at corner shops, then vote in the pols who will allow it. Heller made clear FA was out and that by inference covers explosives too. And a flash bang is an explosive.
 
terraformer said:
We need to work within the structure we have been given. You want flash bangs sold at corner shops, then vote in the pols who will allow it. Heller made clear FA was out and that by inference covers explosives too. And a flash bang is an explosive.
Click to expand...

If a flashbang is an explosive, so is a cartridge. Gun fire in confined spaces can be just as damaging as a flashbang. Your argument could easily be used to say guns are banned because in confined spaces the noise is exactly like a flashbang causing indiscriminate harm.

Not to mention I find the discussion of single shot bullets passing through easily turned around to dismantle your argument.
 
xtry51 said:
If a flashbang is an explosive, so is a cartridge. Gun fire in confined spaces can be just as damaging as a flashbang. Your argument could easily be used to say guns are banned because in confined spaces the noise is exactly like a flashbang causing indiscriminate harm.

Not to mention I find the discussion of single shot bullets passing through easily turned around to dismantle your argument.
Click to expand...

I don’t think it’s his argument, but rather what the ruling reflects.
 
I'm not a fan of arguments that feel the need to point out things you don't support. The argument for a test did not need to openly categorize all classes to support one class.

If I'm on the other side of this case and I lose, you damn well better believe I would latch onto this argument to support other 2A violations when they inevitably arose. You're handing the other side a way to justify hundreds, if not thousands of bad laws.
 
terraformer said:
He had a busy week.
Here is Comm2A's brief in this case.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-404/120365/20191025163113453_19-404 Brief of Amicus Curiae Commonwealth Second Amendment.pdf
And I have already decided we will be changing the name of the proposed objective test to "Discrete Action, Distinct Effect". I never liked discriminate but could never think of something better until tonight, after we filed the brief of course.
Click to expand...

Dated October 25, 2018 ??

:emoji_tiger:
 
CatSnoutSoup said:
I do not “get it”.

I am sorry, I probably just do not understand. But that brief, which it has been said was just submitted, is dated 10/25/2018.

What am I missing, again sorry if it is a legal protocol that I do not understand.

:emoji_tiger:
Click to expand...
someone mistyped a date. that is all. should have said 10/25/2019
 
CatSnoutSoup said:
I do not “get it”.

I am sorry, I probably just do not understand. But that brief, which it has been said was just submitted, is dated 10/25/2018.

What am I missing, again sorry if it is a legal protocol that I do not understand.

:emoji_tiger:
Click to expand...
I’m so quick, I filed it before I wrote it.
 

Similar threads

Hello Massachusetts Folks
Replies
14
Views
3K
spt_1955
spt_1955
Alves v. McNamara?
Replies
3
Views
667
KBCraig
KBCraig
US Supreme Court OT 2019
9 10 11
Replies
304
Views
29K
Waher
Waher
Pressure to agree to PTP vs Trial/complete exoneration
2
Replies
45
Views
5K
Rat187
Rat187
Comm2A and Black Guns Matter in MA week of 12/10/18
Replies
12
Views
2K
CatSnoutSoup
CatSnoutSoup
Back
Top Bottom