Calling all Massholes

[pmclaine]

Being a glutton for punishment I decided to get myself involved in another court case.

This one focusing on limited issues associated with the new MA gun laws that are so messed up they have to keep delaying them.

5 or 6 plaintiffs lead by one very savvy dude have filed a case in the MA Supreme Judicial Court to achieve three goals.

1. Eliminate firearms licensing
2. Remove the state prohibition on cans. MA being one of only 8 states that prohibit them
3. Prevent the expansion of the “gun free zones” called for in the new law.

The basis of the case is fighting in state court where the MA SJC has indicated it is applying the Bruen standards as stated. The recent ruling that rescinded the 70 year old law on switch blades would indicate they are interpreting the defense amendments in their historical context.

Explanation of the case from the lead plaintiff here….It’s about a 45 minute presentation and it makes sense to my biased self.



Give Send Go to help with filing fees here if you want to bet on some under dogs.

Restore Our Right To Bear Arms In MA Lawsuit

An ambitious lawsuit to restore the people's right to bear arms in Massachusetts!This lawsuit is unlike most others throughout the country seeking to restore...

www.givesendgo.com

If we win it will really cost you getting your barrels threaded, paying for stamps and buying cans.

Those costs will be offset by the $125 savings every 5 years not paying for a license.

 

[wvfarrier]

Good luck!

 

[Necessary 3vil]

Good fucking luck and the fuck ever if you think or even wholly believe the state will cave on it….

2A means jack SHIT there.

 

[NoDopes]

Donated. Time to take it back.

 

[pmclaine]

Good fucking luck and the fuck ever if you think or even wholly believe the state will cave on it….

2A means jack SHIT there.

Why so defeated?

 

[Necessary 3vil]

Why so defeated?

Lack of FUCKING trust….

 

[pmclaine]

Lack of FUCKING trust….

You can’t possibly have less trust than me.

Sounds like lack of heart.

 

[Necessary 3vil]

You can’t possibly have less trust than me.

Sounds like lack of heart.

Brother I’ve a HUGE heart. Tired of thieves and democrats.

 

[mrdrar]

Redundant.

 

[SanPatHogger]

Good luck. Takes some guts to put yourself out there like that.

 

[jrassy]

The entire original colonies are a shit show, to many torries there , but good luck

 

[Mongo68]

Best of luck from behind enemy lines in Kalifornia.

 

[pmclaine]

The entire original colonies are a shit show, to many torries there , but good luck

The impossible can happen….

 

[MCHOG]

I am a litigator. And I can tell you that a serious case needs counsel. And you are taking on the government. So it's a serious case.

I've seen plenty of pro-se litigants lose cases they could have won because they didn't understand complicated rules of procedure, rules of evidence, or the law generally (i.e. not making the right arguments). Here, the risk is that, through avoidable missteps, you end up losing and creating bad law that would then put your goals further out of reach.

If you were preparing for a fire fight, you wouldn't pull folks off the street who had no training. A loss would risk wasting resources and permanently losing ground. Instead, you would patiently wait until you had the resources and experienced people who could win.

There is no need to file this immediately. Be patient. Wait until you can win. Don't risk putting the law in a worse place than where it is now.

Edit: I suggest that you check with gun clubs or gun rights organizations in your state and see if you can find a 2A friendly lawyer willing to work pro bono or at a reduced rate.

 

[M4orturnate]

After last night I'm allowing myself a tinge of optimism. Godspeed

 

[pmclaine]

I am a litigator. And I can tell you that a serious case needs counsel. And you are taking on the government. So it's a serious case.

I've seen plenty of pro-se litigants lose cases they could have won because they didn't understand complicated rules of procedure, rules of evidence, or the law generally (i.e. not making the right arguments). Here, the risk is that, through avoidable missteps, you end up losing and creating bad law that would then put your goals further out of reach.

If you were preparing for a fire fight, you wouldn't pull folks off the street who had no training. A loss would risk wasting resources and permanently losing ground. Instead, you would patiently wait until you had the resources and experienced people who could win.

There is no need to file this immediately. Be patient. Wait until you can win. Don't risk putting the law in a worse place than where it is now.

Edit: I suggest that you check with gun clubs or gun rights organizations in your state and see if you can find a 2A friendly lawyer willing to work pro bono or at a reduced rate.

“The man that represents himself in court has a fool for a client”

Perhaps in the day but if the past four years has shown anything it’s that the “professions” suck - political, medical, military, law enforcement, and legal.

The number of “litigators” willing to take up civil cases for the mandate abuses was few. They were all scared to death and wet themselves claiming Jacobson vs Cambridge was settled law.

Apparently they only take easy cases or just the ones they can get a quick check on than surrender.

Two state gun rights organizations took up cases in the federal court. Their cases were duplicates. Of course neither wanted to cede primacy. Finally one dropped while the other proceeds.

This is another means of attack and the gentleman leading it has taken a role he never wanted but is willing to do because he is passionate in fighting tyrrany.

It’s shoestring at best but there is a void in the line and it needs to be exploited.

More to follow.

 

[JaredT175]

Ending the can ban would be a dream come true, I’d probably have 4 stamps filed the second it was lifted! And the fact that they are already heavily regulated by the feds but yet are still banned in this state should be enough proof on its own that these unconstitutional laws have never been about “safety” and have always been about CONTROL.

 

[pmclaine]

Ending the can ban would be a dream come true, I’d probably have 4 stamps filed the second it was lifted! And the fact that they are already heavily regulated by the feds but yet are still banned in this state should be enough proof on its own that these unconstitutional laws have never been about “safety” and have always been about CONTROL.

Only reason we don’t have it is because they know in our congested state it will cause anger against gun owners due to noise.

One way to get clubs shut down.

 

[JaredT175]

Only reason we don’t have it is because they know in our congested state it will cause anger against gun owners do to noise.

One way to get clubs shut down.

Makes sense. Glad I live in a more conservative part of the state, that’s not saying much but not quite as many leftist lunatics out here.

 

[pmclaine]

Case has been filed.

All updates are being posted in the Give Send Go.

If you go to the update for Nov 11, 2024 you can read the PDF of the case.

Interested to get some opinion.

Restore Our Right To Bear Arms In MA Lawsuit

An ambitious lawsuit to restore the people's right to bear arms in Massachusetts!This lawsuit is unlike most others throughout the country seeking to restore...

www.givesendgo.com

 

[MCHOG]

So that you can prepare now, the next thing that will happen is: within 20 days of personally serving the Defendants, you will receive a Motion to Dismiss on behalf of each of the Defendants. They will probably also make claims that all or part of the Complaint is frivolous and filed in bad faith, and seek an award of their attorneys' fees against each of the Plaintiffs for having to defend the case. Someone on your end will need to get very familiar with Mass. law (state-level case law, not just the statute) on frivolous litigation to respond to that. The only thing worse than paying an attorney to represent you is paying for the other side's attorney to go against you.

 

[Romeo458]

Murdock v Pennsylvania for use against the paying and needed license to exercise a right. Have the legal team review that SCOTUS decision!