Jump to content


Photo

Worman v. Healey: An "Assault Weapon" case out of MA requesting review by SCOTUS


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 Silhouette

  • Members
  • 34 posts
  • Joined: 04-May 13

Posted 24 September 2019 - 11:03 AM

https://drive.google...zANjfxoEHJ/view

 

Worman v. Healy requests review of a Massachusetts law banning "assault weapons" and certain magazines.  A decision in this case by SCOTUS would likely impact decisions in Wilson and precedent from Friedman.  


Edited by Silhouette, 24 September 2019 - 11:03 AM.


#2 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,923 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 24 September 2019 - 11:54 AM

Docket
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#3 357

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,727 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 12

Posted 24 September 2019 - 02:13 PM

No such thing as assault weapons. It was coined by Hitler for propaganda.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"
George Orwell

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will loose both"
Benjamin Franklin

#4 Silhouette

  • Members
  • 34 posts
  • Joined: 04-May 13

Posted 24 September 2019 - 02:42 PM

"Assault Weapon" is the term being challenged in the Massachusetts ban, and it is defined within the context of that law by the commonwealth of Massachusetts.  The Sturmgewehr (translated: assualt rifle) you mention was successfully challenged in a different context by brave men on the field of battle.  May Worman be as successful...



#5 357

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,727 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 12

Posted 24 September 2019 - 03:24 PM

"Assault Weapon" is the term being challenged in the Massachusetts ban, and it is defined within the context of that law by the commonwealth of Massachusetts.  The Sturmgewehr (translated: assualt rifle) you mention was successfully challenged in a different context by brave men on the field of battle.  May Worman be as successful...


They copied the same term assault rifle and say weapon so it encompasses many weapons and it was coined by Hitler and is being used for propaganda to disarm Americans.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"
George Orwell

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will loose both"
Benjamin Franklin

#6 DarkLord

  • Members
  • 27 posts
  • Joined: 06-March 19

Posted 24 September 2019 - 07:45 PM

I have no confidence in SCOTUS at all, I expect them to screw us over and not uphold the 2A.. 



#7 JTHunter

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,547 posts
  • Joined: 29-November 13

Posted 25 September 2019 - 02:47 PM

There are a couple of things in this text that I find intriguing and hopeful.  The PDF states clearly that multiple lower courts have not followed the SC prior jurisprudence.

 

This Court has analyzed and confirmed the scope of this fundamental, individual right on three separate occasions. Heller, 554 U.S. at 625, 627; Mc-Donald, 561 U.S. at 790–91; Caetano, 136 S. Ct. at 1027–28. Yet the lower courts do not follow Heller and its progeny in reviewing firearm bans. (emphasis added)

 

With so many "lower courts" not following the rulings of those three cases, there is hope that the SC will rule against these infringements.


“We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.” - - Abraham Lincoln

“Small minds adhere to the letter of the law; great minds dispense Justice.” - - S. C. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

Life member NAHC, Endowment member NRA

#8 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,972 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 25 September 2019 - 03:54 PM

There are a couple of things in this text that I find intriguing and hopeful.  The PDF states clearly that multiple lower courts have not followed the SC prior jurisprudence.

 

This Court has analyzed and confirmed the scope of this fundamental, individual right on three separate occasions. Heller, 554 U.S. at 625, 627; Mc-Donald, 561 U.S. at 790–91; Caetano, 136 S. Ct. at 1027–28. Yet the lower courts do not follow Heller and its progeny in reviewing firearm bans. (emphasis added)

 

With so many "lower courts" not following the rulings of those three cases, there is hope that the SC will rule against these infringements.

 

I honestly believe this is where the Supreme Court is heading with the cases it's reviewing.   It has become clear that many (most) lower courts to be blunt refuse to accept Heller, McDonald (and the unsigned opinion in Caetano v. Massachusetts) as precedent and rule contrary, this simply can't be allowed, nor tollerated in our judicial system and I think the Supreme Court is about to white glove the lower courts or worse smack them upside the head with the gavel over this refusal to follow their precedent.


Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#9 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,923 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 25 September 2019 - 04:02 PM

I honestly believe this is where the Supreme Court is heading with the cases it's reviewing....


Technically, the only firearms case it's currently reviewing is NYSRPA. Others have petitioned for certiorari, but not yet been granted. We might hear about some of them on October 7.
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#10 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,972 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 25 September 2019 - 04:27 PM

 

I honestly believe this is where the Supreme Court is heading with the cases it's reviewing....


Technically, the only firearms case it's currently reviewing is NYSRPA. Others have petitioned for certiorari, but not yet been granted. We might hear about some of them on October 7.

 

 

Yep, I understand that is the case now, but I also consider the fact they are hearing pentions for certiorari to be reviews as well as I firmly believe they are looking for a simple case like NYSRPA or another that can be used as the carrier for the white glove slap or multiple slaps.


Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#11 Silhouette

  • Members
  • 34 posts
  • Joined: 04-May 13

Posted 26 September 2019 - 07:32 AM

I expect that we will learn a lot about SCOTUS's approach after the results of the long conference.  Many 2A cases are being held, presumably pending the outcome in NYSRPA.  NYC has arguably mooted that case (and they do argue it).  Whether we like it or not, the state preempting the city should give court-watchers pause.

 

Given the court's respect for propriety in all matters and that improper readings of Heller et al are running rampant, I think it is quite possible that SCOTUS may choose a case other than NYSRPA as a vehicle to establish clear guidance on scrutiny (if applicable) for 2A cases.  It's not like there aren't a lot of options to choose from...



#12 Mr. Fife

    Nip it

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,265 posts
  • Joined: 03-July 10

Posted 07 October 2019 - 08:36 AM

Mootness denied. It's going to trial.
Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
 
 

#13 Mr. Fife

    Nip it

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,265 posts
  • Joined: 03-July 10

Posted 07 October 2019 - 08:47 AM

Oops wrong thread
Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
 
 




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users