Massachusetts AG loses appeal

Thanks AB. I just read through this.
So without going to law school :) I almost understood this. Is there a site that walks a layman through various decisions? Clearly there are many terms of art therein.
 
Sounds like the Mass. Attorney General tried to have the case dismissed, but was denied (so the case continues).
...correct?
 
There is a policy in federal court to abstain from deciding cases with a counterpart in state court involving sufficiently similar claims with sufficiently similar parties (abstention). In this case, the claims in federal district court are purely federal in nature while another lawsuit by a different plaintiff alleges a violation of state law in state court.* The federal and state claims in the two suits are not especially similar in nature. The federal court simply denied the AG's request to abstain from hearing the case on abstention grounds.



* Sometimes federal courts will exercise what is known as pendent jurisdiction and hear state law claims that are similar to those in federal court, but with all the claims brought in federal court. For example, a person might sue for deprivation of federal civil rights due to a beating from police officers. The federal court may also hear a state law claim of battery.
 
Correct me if I get this wrong, the claim is the AG exceeded her legal authority adding (they say advising) certain guns to the ban list.

Cases were filed to prevent this. This ruling is that ONE of those cases will not be dismissed just because the AG asks it to be.

The legality of what the AG did has not yet been resolved, this ruling means the case it ruled on will go forward.

Is that about right??
 
44 AMP said:
Correct me if I get this wrong, the claim is the AG exceeded her legal authority adding (they say advising) certain guns to the ban list.

Cases were filed to prevent this. This ruling is that ONE of those cases will not be dismissed just because the AG asks it to be.

The legality of what the AG did has not yet been resolved, this ruling means the case it ruled on will go forward.

Is that about right??
Click to expand...
That's how I read and my ASSumption is it's related to how MA had a specific AWB on paper as law, then it was later interpreted in an AG statement to cover things like new uppers (ie parts) or stripped lowers not originally specified by the AWB.
 
Correct me if I get this wrong, the claim is the AG exceeded her legal authority adding (they say advising) certain guns to the ban list.
Click to expand...
You are wrong. As stated by the Court in Pullman Arms:
This Court allowed Plaintiffs to proceed with two claims: that the Enforcement Notice is unconstitutionally vague and that it deprived Plaintiffs of property without due process.
Click to expand...
Opinion at p. 2. That does not mean the AG exceeded her authority since that is a question of state law. Different plaintiffs, Baystate Firearms and others, sued in state court claiming the AG's action exceeded her authority under state law by issuing an advisory opinion when the state should have proceeded by going through the process of adopting a regulation.

The Pullman court said it would not dismiss the federal claims for the very reason the plaintiffs said they would not pursue any state claims in federal court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top