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

[rwl1955]

No, but he can hold back in other ways and make it difficult for others who support her. In my opinion there should never even be a state AG office. They historically just abuse their power. There is ZERO positive to having an AG in MA.

*********
for us you are correct, she should be investigating her corrupt cronies and not being a Social Justice Warrior/anti-gun Dem.

 

[rwl1955]

There is no law that prohibits it.

YET!

 

[KMM696]

Alas, we gun owners would likely be the victim of a peremptory challenge and never make it on a jury for such a case.

Hmmm.... What is the penalty, if any, for lying during jury selection? Contempt of court?

 

[dans]

Alas, we gun owners would likely be the victim of a peremptory challenge and never make it on a jury for such a case.

I think there is a limit on the peremptory challenges. Both sides get only a few.

 

[Comm2A]

Back on track please.....

MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND THE JUDGMENT

The Notice of Enforcement—issued almost twenty years after the Challenged Laws were passed—now criminalizes, under Massachusetts law, the sale of firearms that were previously transferred in good faith compliance with existing law. This retroactive criminalization under Massachusetts law inarguably exposes dealer Plaintiffs to both state and federal criminal prosecution and loss of licensure. Plaintiffs’ claim that they were denied due process of law is ripe for adjudication.

This Court should alter or amend its judgment dismissing Count Two on ripeness grounds. The Court sua sponte dismissed Count Two without affording either party an opportunity to brief that issue. Neither the parties nor the Court raised the question of ripeness before the entry of final judgment. Plaintiffs should be provided an opportunity to brief the issue fully. Moreover, the Court’s analysis contains a clear legal error. Plaintiffs’ retroactivity claim is ripe for adjudication as a matter of law because Plaintiffs face potential state and federal prosecution and the firearms dealer Plaintiffs could lose their licenses. For these reasons, the judgment should be altered or amended, after permitting the parties to fully brief the issue.

 

[Drix]

Back on track please.....

MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND THE JUDGMENT

Ayy!

 

[Dadstoys]

Is there an English translation for the legalize impaired ?
Is this good or bad or in the middle?

 

[DW357]

Is there an English translation for the legalize impaired ?
Is this good or bad or in the middle?

Same. That’s almost like Chinese to me lol.

 

[jek]

Is there an English translation for the legalize impaired ?
Is this good or bad or in the middle?

sounds good to me, if I interpret it correctly, it is asking the court to reverse the previous ruling. I never heard of ripe/ripen in legalese, though.

 

[Drix]

Does it go to a different judge or back to the same one?

 

[426wedge]

it would be nice if someone could condense all that Legalese for all us dummies and give us the bottom line...Thanks.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

In order to have standing, a legal issue has to be 'ripe', meaning that all over avenues for settling the issue at question have been exhausted and that a real Article III 'controversy remains. In Worman, the court dismissed Count Two for not being ripe even though the parties didn't have the opportunity to even brief that issue. Basically, the court got ahead of itself.

The motion is before the original court and the original judge. In my (extremely) limited experience, judges do not like to second guess themselves. My betting money would be on the court denying to motion and thereby setting up an issue that is indeed 'ripe' for appeal to the First Circuit.

 

[RG Sports]

Same. That’s almost like Chinese to me lol.

In Chinese you would say ting bu dong. It means I don’t understand.
My Chinese is rusty so don’t flame me if I’m off on the spelling.

 

[Lank]

Supreme Court justices - over rated egg heads with no common sense...

They can’t even understand the reason of the concept of lifetime appointments.,

Is to prevent popular mob hysteria instead of rule of law. ( and to prevent mental midgets like this one- U.S. Rep. Bill Foster
Rep. Bill Foster: Second Amendment meant to be reinterpreted by each generation).

From wiping his ass with the bill of rights.


He should be impeached. He is such a mental midget I am surprised he hasn't walked in front of a train yet.

NOT to infer that they are super human and can render judgments when some of them don’t even know where they are till they are filled up with 27 daily pills .

Retire already with some grace and wisdom you think you are bestowed with.

 

[xtry51]

I'll translate ripe into normal English:

As the court, we require citizens to be completely f***ed by the system repeatedly before we will even remotely consider looking at whether a law is bad or not. If we don't see an otherwise perfect person get railroaded while bootstrapped by said law, we are not going to acknowledge its existence.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

I'll translate ripe into normal English:

As the court, we require citizens to be completely f***ed by the system repeatedly before we will even remotely consider looking at whether a law is bad or not. If we don't see an otherwise perfect person get railroaded while bootstrapped by said law, we are not going to acknowledge its existence.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Hmmm.... What is the penalty, if any, for lying during jury selection? Contempt of court?

Ask Laura Khiro (google her). I think her case was ultimately overturned. She served on the jury for a drug case, and she voted incorrectly, so the prosecution started to dig for dirt and found she had a history of pro-drug-freedom activism and had her prosecuted for not disclosing that to the court during voir dire. A big part of the decision which I think ultimately held in her favor was the fact that she would not have been prosecuted had she voted the way the government wanted.

 

[JayCaliber]

Does it go to a different judge or back to the same one?

Good question. I really hope not the same one. I feel like that would defeat the purpose, but I'm no lawyer by any means.

 

[fshalor]

So if AR-15s fall outside the scope of 2A, then an argument could be made that ALL semiautomatics do as well.

Be prepared folks, it’s coming.

Her actions violate her oath as a civil servant .shouldn't a perjury case be coming her way soon? I wasn't aware an AG could make law .that sort of .Ya know .up to the lawmakers?

 

[Frizzle Fry]

Her actions violate her oath as a civil servant .shouldn't a perjury case be coming her way soon? I wasn't aware an AG could make law .that sort of .Ya know .up to the lawmakers?

There are a few MA laws about conspiring to- or restricting civil rights as guaranteed by the state and US consitutions... It even specifies elected officials or those "acting under color of law". No idea how it'd get to being applied, though.

 

[Squire]

If Legislature can pass laws (or the Executive in this case interprest them) that threaten to f*** people's lives up, but don't actually do it, and the Judicial refuse to remove that oppression, then the People get to have the equivalent of Jury nullification and just break the goddamn law. Or act in their role as the fourth branch of Government, the Armed Citizenry.

I'll translate ripe into normal English:
As the court, we require citizens to be completely f***ed by the system repeatedly before we will even remotely consider looking at whether a law is bad or not. If we don't see an otherwise perfect person get railroaded while bootstrapped by said law, we are not going to acknowledge its existence.

 

[Rehoboth Dave]

Like i've said before I think the AR-15 is the quintessential militia weapon. Easy to shoot and handle by just about anyone. Similar enough to government issue in operation, range, maintenance, ammo and parts that militiamen so equipped are easily resupplied. Really if the 2A protects the civilian possession of any one single firearm, then the AR-15 is it.

 

[Drix]

Her actions violate her oath as a civil servant .shouldn't a perjury case be coming her way soon? I wasn't aware an AG could make law .that sort of .Ya know .up to the lawmakers?

"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service- m16 rifles and the like- may be banned, then the second amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause...."

Operative clause: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Prefatory clause: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State."

"But we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the second amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty."

-DC v Heller

As in, the operative clause is *not separate* from the prefatory clause, unless you re-define "the militia" which has already been ruled on by the Supreme Court.

 

[headednorth]

"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service- m16 rifles and the like- may be banned, then the second amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause...."

Operative clause: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Prefatory clause: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State."

"But we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the second amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty."

-DC v Heller

As in, the operative clause is *not separate* from the prefatory clause, unless you re-define "the militia" which has already been ruled on by the Supreme Court.

Can't think of any other instance where "the people" is taken to mean "the National Guard" which is essentially the government. Why would the government feel the need to guarentee itself the right to keep amd bear arms?

 

[JohnZ]

Can't think of any other instance where "the people" is taken to mean "the National Guard" which is essentially the government. Why would the government feel the need to guarentee itself the right to keep amd bear arms?

Yeah. Why didn't they write "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?" They were pretty smart guys.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

Yeah. Why didn't they write "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?" They were pretty smart guys.

unlike today

 

[Horrible]

Can't think of any other instance where "the people" is taken to mean "the National Guard" which is essentially the government. Why would the government feel the need to guarentee itself the right to keep amd bear arms?

You are using logic. The intent of the left is to twist any and all logic and facts to support their agenda of disarmament.

 

[hv55maxx]

"The final judgment reflects a clear error of law that would work a manifest injustice if not altered or amended."

love the dig on the douche judge

 

[Xike]

To be clear, is this appeal only challenging count two (which to my understanding is the constitutionality of the enforcement notice)?

 

[terraformer]

To be clear, is this appeal only challenging count two (which to my understanding is the constitutionality of the enforcement notice)?

It's not an appeal, it's a motion for reconsideration. An appeal comes next.