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

someone mistyped a date. that is all. should have said 10/25/2019

Thank you, that is what I assumed.

Just now sent another small donation to @Comm2A to cover what may be a large bill for coffee and whiteout this month.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled @swatgig super speed court proceedings.

:emoji_tiger:
 
Dream big: Nation Wide injunction on AWBs until the case is settled.

Oh please oh please oh please oh please......

If that happens, stripped lowers and 30-round mags are going to be FLYING off the shelves like they did in CA during the 10 days that the magazine ban was overturned.
 
"The Second Amendment protects all arms that meet the described Discrete Action, Discriminate Effect test, including those arms banned by statute and additionally those covered by the supplemental enforcement notice."

Nice job, congratulations, and thank you.
 
Last edited:
I’m so quick, I filed it before I wrote it.

Sorry @swatgig it was thoughtless of me to forget to say, congratulations!

Putting your work before the highest court in the land must be very satisfying for you.
You have both my esteem and a little envy.

That congratulations of course also extends to the entire @Comm2A team, win or lose you should all share the satisfaction of having fought the good fight.

:emoji_tiger:
 
Yeah, that sheet is just quoting the actual law.

I would be tickled pink if an officer arrested someone solely for possession of a pre-7/20/2016 AR. It would mean the Healey ban would come under fire in a criminal case and stands a better chance of being struck down.
 
Interesting, this is circulating on Facebook.

Looks legitimate, also looks like trouble.View attachment 311444

not seeing the “significance” here. written by an attorney for the MSP and references 9/94 AWB, which is of course in the MGL. Just because it fails to mention Healey’s 7/16 date or other business I would not read into it.

this thread is regarding the Worman AWB case. maybe we could refrain from creating the 10,000th Healey-7/16 thread.
 
If there's not going to be mandatory jail time for judges who continue to ignore SCOTUS rulings, then nothing will change. Even if SCOTUS takes this case and finds 100% in our favor, the lower courts and states will simply ignore the decision as they have done with Heller and Macdonald.

If you have a case overturned by SCOTUS, the prosecutor and judges involved should automatically be banned from practicing law for life for violating rights.
 
If there's not going to be mandatory jail time for judges who continue to ignore SCOTUS rulings, then nothing will change. Even if SCOTUS takes this case and finds 100% in our favor, the lower courts and states will simply ignore the decision as they have done with Heller and Macdonald.

If you have a case overturned by SCOTUS, the prosecutor and judges involved should automatically be banned from practicing law for life for violating rights.
I would add to this. If a lawmaker backs a law which is found to be unconstitutional, they are barred from office for life.
 
Great article to read. Amazing that so many legislators and courts ignore obvious principles of our constitution when they disagree with the subject matter.
 
If there's not going to be mandatory jail time for judges who continue to ignore SCOTUS rulings, then nothing will change. Even if SCOTUS takes this case and finds 100% in our favor, the lower courts and states will simply ignore the decision as they have done with Heller and Macdonald.

If you have a case overturned by SCOTUS, the prosecutor and judges involved should automatically be banned from practicing law for life for violating rights.

SCOTUS isn't going to hear it. And if they do - which I'd be AMAZED - it's going to be more retarded limp wristed garbage. And the reason for it is 100% political, and probably mostly based around the fear of carrying the blame for fully legalizing extra killy guns used in unusual shootings.

Blowing away the past 60 years of crap gun control would act as a legacy placeholder for every judge on that panel, and I suspect none of them want to be remembered mainly for a wide in scope pro gun ruling that a 4 year old could understand.

I would add to this. If a lawmaker backs a law which is found to be unconstitutional, they are barred from office for life.

SCOTUS would then have the de facto ability to remove officials from office, for reasons. Which is 100% against the purpose of that court.
 
I would argue even better. The more turnover the better.

You could mitigate it with strict term limits first, then make the penalty they finish their term and then become ineligible for any future office. Or allow Presidential pardon with 2/3rds Senate and 2/3rd of state governors approval to waive the ban as a stop gap.

Fact is there needs to be some punishment for violating natural rights for ALL public servants. And it should be harsh.
 
I would argue even better. The more turnover the better.

You could mitigate it with strict term limits first, then make the penalty they finish their term and then become ineligible for any future office. Or allow Presidential pardon with 2/3rds Senate and 2/3rd of state governors approval to waive the ban as a stop gap.

Fact is there needs to be some punishment for violating natural rights for ALL public servants. And it should be harsh.

The problem is who is going to run for office? Can Dench quit his job after he's elected only to face a forced retirement? No. I'd lose my ass.

We already have enough insane people in charge. Now were going to have insane people and people who have no concept of a career to support an adult/family life [rofl]

Shit, if they caped it at 20-30 years so they could get a retirement from it I could see it. But when you go under that you'll lose a lot of decent peoples interest as it will obliterate non elected careers for most people. And the only people it won't do that to are corrupt ones making connections based off their offices power, which is another land mine and will definitely happen.
 
The problem is who is going to run for office? Can Dench quit his job after he's elected only to face a forced retirement? No. I'd lose my ass.

We already have enough insane people in charge. Now were going to have insane people and people who have no concept of a career to support an adult/family life [rofl]

Shit, if they caped it at 20-30 years so they could get a retirement from it I could see it. But when you go under that you'll lose a lot of decent peoples interest as it will obliterate non elected careers for most people. And the only people it won't do that to are corrupt ones making connections based off their offices power, which is another land mine and will definitely happen.
It's easy, no pay, no benefits. Only the rich or retired people will run for office.
 
If there's not going to be mandatory jail time for judges who continue to ignore SCOTUS rulings, then nothing will change. Even if SCOTUS takes this case and finds 100% in our favor, the lower courts and states will simply ignore the decision as they have done with Heller and Macdonald.

If you have a case overturned by SCOTUS, the prosecutor and judges involved should automatically be banned from practicing law for life for violating rights.
What's happening right now is very similar to what happened throughout the 60's when lower courts and police around the country were effectively ignoring a series of SCOTUS rulings around civil liberties. The law changes slowly and reluctantly.
 
So according to Worman v. Healey - SCOTUSblog the AG submitted her response a few days ago. Today was technically the deadline. Not super familiar with court procedure--should we be expecting to hear a decision on writ before NYSRPA v NYC is resolved or is this case on hold until after?
 
So according to Worman v. Healey - SCOTUSblog the AG submitted her response a few days ago. Today was technically the deadline. Not super familiar with court procedure--should we be expecting to hear a decision on writ before NYSRPA v NYC is resolved or is this case on hold until after?
Using the NYSRPA v NYC case as an example, it was approximately 8 weeks after the deadline that cert was granted. Deadline for the Healey case is 12/9/19
 
So according to Worman v. Healey - SCOTUSblog the AG submitted her response a few days ago. Today was technically the deadline. Not super familiar with court procedure--should we be expecting to hear a decision on writ before NYSRPA v NYC is resolved or is this case on hold until after?
In this brief, she states that "Assault Weapons" and "high capacity magazines" are banned from civilian use, but goes on to state that LEOs are not subject to the ban. Which is it? Law Enforcement Officers, last I checked, are civilians, since they are subject and organized under Civil Law and not Martial Law. If these are banned for "civilians" then how do police officers have them?
 
So according to Worman v. Healey - SCOTUSblog the AG submitted her response a few days ago. Today was technically the deadline. Not super familiar with court procedure--should we be expecting to hear a decision on writ before NYSRPA v NYC is resolved or is this case on hold until after?
Petitioners will file a reply brief and then the petition will be scheduled for conference. I fully expect that SCOTUS will not take any action until later in the term. There's another AWB challenge petition (Wilson). They won't likely deal with the backlog until the deal with NYSRPA and Wilson gets to conference.
 

Oct 25 2019Amicus brief of Commonwealth Second Amendment, Inc. not accepted for filing. (November 04, 2019)

Shows it filled again on October 30th.

Did SCotUS bounce the Comm2a Amicus brief or did SCotUS Blog mess up?
 
Turns out the case has not been granted or denied. Most are speculating they are waiting for a ruling on the new york case.
 
Back
Top Bottom