BUMP STOCK SUIT FILED!

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • jkeys

    Active Member
    Jan 30, 2013
    668
    Has MSI asked for an emergency injunction? Given the seriousness of the accusations of this constituting a taking and making people criminals overnight, one would think that a judge would grant a temporary injunction.
     

    esqappellate

    President, MSI
    Feb 12, 2012
    7,408
    Has MSI asked for an emergency injunction? Given the seriousness of the accusations of this constituting a taking and making people criminals overnight, one would think that a judge would grant a temporary injunction.

    Stay tuned
     

    Kicken Wing

    Snakes and Sparklers
    Apr 5, 2014
    868
    WASH-CO
    Stay tuned

    Right on! Good read. Thanks for sharing the MSI link. I am patiently waiting to see how this unfolds in Maryland. MSI made rock solid points. The powers that be in this state DO have a tendency to ignore facts and pass feel good legislation instead. Fingers crossed on this one. I want to see us gun owners win this battle.
     

    whistlersmother

    Peace through strength
    Jan 29, 2013
    8,972
    Fulton, MD
    Not to be the cynic that I am, but the judges will probably declare the takings clause as unconstitutional in their effort to stamp down guns...

    In any event, more power to MSI. If there are any judges left that have an ounce of integrity to their oath, this law should be struck down.

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
     

    Blacksmith101

    Grumpy Old Man
    Jun 22, 2012
    22,301
    I'm no litigator, so excuse my ignorance. Is it common for a defendant to file a 12(b)(6) motion prior to filing its answer? What was the reason the State seeking an extension - so that it could file its 12(b)(6) motion?

    What kind of timeline are we looking at before we hear something from the Court about the motions?

    For the non lawyers what is a 12(b)(6) motion, cliff notes version please.
     

    Doctor_M

    Certified Mad Scientist
    MDS Supporter
    Thank you MSI. Great work. May the force be with us.

    But given that Oct is rolling in, I'll be packing up my toys to take to an undisclosed location back in America. One of the things I'll have to do is pull off a hellfire trigger that has been on an AK literally since the early 1990s. F Annapolis.
     

    DC-W

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 23, 2013
    25,290
    ️‍
    Thank you MSI. Great work. May the force be with us.

    But given that Oct is rolling in, I'll be packing up my toys to take to an undisclosed location back in America. One of the things I'll have to do is pull off a hellfire trigger that has been on an AK literally since the early 1990s. F Annapolis.

    We thank you for your support.
     

    Abulg1972

    Ultimate Member
    For the non lawyers what is a 12(b)(6) motion, cliff notes version please.


    A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. It’s a reference to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

    I guess it’s common for a defendant to file a motion to dismiss before filing an answer.

    It is just interesting to me how the State is playing this, but that just might be because I don’t litigate and have no idea how that works. The fact that the State asked for extra time to file an answer yet was able to file a substantial motion to dismiss is interesting. IMO, the State has a snowball’s chance in Hell of having its motion to dismiss granted. MSI clearly has stated plausible claims.
     

    esqappellate

    President, MSI
    Feb 12, 2012
    7,408
    A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. It’s a reference to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

    I guess it’s common for a defendant to file a motion to dismiss before filing an answer.

    It is just interesting to me how the State is playing this, but that just might be because I don’t litigate and have no idea how that works. The fact that the State asked for extra time to file an answer yet was able to file a substantial motion to dismiss is interesting. IMO, the State has a snowball’s chance in Hell of having its motion to dismiss granted. MSI clearly has stated plausible claims.

    Right. BTW, 12(b)(6) motions may, indeed, must be filed before filing answer. Otherwise a motion is based on pleadings. The legal idea is that you should not have to answer a complaint that is legally insufficient on its face. The state almost always files such a motion, even when it doesn't have much of an argument. Getting an extension to file an answer telegraphs that they intended to file a 12(b)(6) motion. We knew that. Very common. And I hope you are right on the merits. I drafted most of that complaint on behalf of MSI in conjunction with counsel, of course. As to time frame, that is utterly up to the court.
     

    Atlasarmory

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Mar 2, 2009
    3,362
    Glen Burnie
    Could those of us storing our property out of state at some point be in a position to hold the state of MD liable for the expense of transporting and storing our property to avoid prosecution during the litigation ?
     

    jkeys

    Active Member
    Jan 30, 2013
    668
    Could those of us storing our property out of state at some point be in a position to hold the state of MD liable for the expense of transporting and storing our property to avoid prosecution during the litigation ?

    If so, I better go buy a house in West Virginia to store my property.
     

    esqappellate

    President, MSI
    Feb 12, 2012
    7,408
    TEASER:
    Members should come to the meeting tomorrow in Columbia. Not only are we having elections and the seminar, but we have very interesting news about the bump stock litigation that we discuss and answer any questions.
     

    jkeys

    Active Member
    Jan 30, 2013
    668
    TEASER:
    Members should come to the meeting tomorrow in Columbia. Not only are we having elections and the seminar, but we have very interesting news about the bump stock litigation that we discuss and answer any questions.

    Unfortunately I have a wedding to attend tomorrow. Any chance you can share the news here tomorrow night or PM the members who can't attend?
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,603
    Messages
    7,288,045
    Members
    33,487
    Latest member
    Mikeymike88

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom