Challenge to Mass AG "List"

[SilentOverlord]

As I'm sure everyone here knows, Mass has two "lists". First is the EEOPS list which is the definitive guide to what can be bought new from an FFL (my understanding).

Second is the Attorney General's "list" that supposedly exists and that some people claim to have seen but no one can produce a copy of, including the AG's office.

So, since the AG is either unwilling or unable to reveal this list of items that meet the AG's special requirements, does that mean that this "list" is unenforceable? I came across an article regarding something called "Void for Vagueness" (link below) which mentions that a statute may be unenforceable, "when an average citizen cannot generally determine what persons are regulated, what conduct is prohibited, or what punishment may be imposed".

By this description is it reasonable to assume that since there appears to be no AG's list, that the average person cannot determine what is prohibited and therefore the list cannot be enforced, and the only real list is the EEOPS one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_for_vagueness

 

[RImike]

Why not file a public records request for it (https://www.sec.state.ma.us/pre/prepdf/guide.pdf)? If the second list is produced it exits, if nothing is produced, then quite simply the list doesn't exist and the only list is the EEOPS one. Not sure though what one would call the second phantom list though.

 

[drgrant]

Comm2A has probably discussed this at length elsewhere on here, but I imagine there's a reason that they did not go at the AG using that particular attack but rather using the nebulous LCI issue to segue into it. Saying "the provided criteria isn't specific enough to be able for anyone to divine what is or isn't compliant" is better than simply saying "bweah wuh buh theres no list so how do we know?"

-Mike

 

[drgrant]

Why not file a public records request for it (https://www.sec.state.ma.us/pre/prepdf/guide.pdf)? If the second list is produced it exits, if nothing is produced, then quite simply the list doesn't exist and the only list is the EEOPS one. Not sure though what one would call the second phantom list though.

Might be useful if it hasn't been done in years... although that said, Harshbarger, Reilly, Coakley, Healy are all of the same vein so I would be surprised if the successor didn't pass on the knowledge of black boxing the handgun compliance crap. (EG, don't write emails, memos about it, etc, etc, ad nauseam. ) Part of the reason the AG says nothing about handgun compliance is because of this issue, anything she says on it officially can be used against her in court.

-Mike

 

[jasons]

The issue isn't the "list" (which doesn't actually exist,) the issue is the AG's regs in 940 CMR 16. That's what Comm2A is chipping away at with cases like Draper v. Healy.

The failure of 940 CMR 16.00 or the Attorney General to specify how a 'load indicator' must function, it's size, shape, location or any other attribute creates ambiguity and confusion for consumers and retailers alike. The inability of dealers to determine with any degree of certainty if a particular handgun's load indicator is 'effective' subjects the dealers to the perpetual danger of arbitrary enforcement action based upon a regulation that is unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous.

 

[drgrant]

The issue isn't the "list" (which doesn't actually exist,) the issue is the AG's regs in 940 CMR 16. That's what Comm2A is chipping away at with cases like Draper v. Healy.

Exactly, there is no list... but there is a slim possibility that someone in the AGs office made some commentary regarding handgun compliance.... problem is to get anything the FOIA request has to be very specific.

-Mike

 

[pupchow]

gofundme.com > LLC opens shop > sell Gl0cks until the AG calls > make a case of it

 

[jasons]

gofundme.com > LLC opens shop > sell Gl0cks until the AG calls > make a case of it

There already is a case. Check out Draper v. Healy.

Comm2A could use some dough by the way...

 

[sbi]

Exist or not, does this ghost list even backed by the law? Can you be sued by the state if found with a gun that is in the official​ EEOPS list but not in the nowhere-to-be-found AG ghost list?

 

[drgrant]

Exist or not, does this ghost list even backed by the law? Can you be sued by the state if found with a gun that is in the official​ EEOPS list but not in the nowhere-to-be-found AG ghost list?

For the 9000th time, no. It's a CMR against dealers. Same thing with the EOPS roster. Handgun compliance bullshit does not affect legality of possession/ownership, at all. The regulated act is the "sale or transfer" and both tiers of compliance are only against the dealer. the EOPS portion is criminal and the AG CMR 940 portion is civil.

-Mike

 

[sbi]

For the 9000th time, no. It's a CMR against dealers. Same thing with the EOPS roster. Handgun compliance bullshit does not affect legality of possession/ownership, at all. The regulated act is the "sale or transfer" and both tiers of compliance are only against the dealer. the EOPS portion is criminal and the AG CMR 940 portion is civil.

-Mike

OK, no need to get upset

So what prevents me (legally) to buy a gun not on the list in NH or anywhere else?

 

[jasons]

OK, no need to get upset

So what prevents me (legally) to buy a gun not on the list in NH or anywhere else?

Assuming you're talking about a hand gun, federal law. (It doesn't prevent you per se, it just makes it illegal to do so.)

 

[drgrant]

OK, no need to get upset

So what prevents me (legally) to buy a gun not on the list in NH or anywhere else?

The "buy the handgun remotely" problem is because federal law more or less "hard blocks" you when you try to inbound the gun (because as a nonresident, you cannot buy handguns directly at an out of state FFL) Per federal law handgun transfer must go through an MA FFL if you are an MA resident. the inbounding MA FFL is then subject to all the MA bullshit and if they think the gun is not compliant they probably won't transfer it.

The obvious way around this is if you maintain more than one legal residency per BATFE definition, which isn't that hard to satisfy. There are a bunch of other 100% legal hacks too that are out there that don't get discussed frequently for obvious reasons.

-Mike

 

[sbi]

Assuming you're talking about a hand gun, federal law. (It doesn't prevent you per se, it just makes it illegal to do so.)

The "buy the handgun remotely" problem is because federal law more or less "hard blocks" you when you try to inbound the gun (because as a nonresident, you cannot buy handguns directly at an out of state FFL) Per federal law handgun transfer must go through an MA FFL if you are an MA resident. the inbounding MA FFL is then subject to all the MA bullshit and if they think the gun is not compliant they probably won't transfer it.

The obvious way around this is if you maintain more than one legal residency per BATFE definition, which isn't that hard to satisfy. There are a bunch of other 100% legal hacks too that are out there that don't get discussed frequently for obvious reasons.

-Mike

Got ya. Thanks.

 

[browncoat]

There already is a case. Check out Draper v. Healy.

Comm2A could use some dough by the way...

/thread

 

[SilentOverlord]

The "buy the handgun remotely" problem is because federal law more or less "hard blocks" you when you try to inbound the gun (because as a nonresident, you cannot buy handguns directly at an out of state FFL) Per federal law handgun transfer must go through an MA FFL if you are an MA resident. the inbounding MA FFL is then subject to all the MA bullshit and if they think the gun is not compliant they probably won't transfer it.

The obvious way around this is if you maintain more than one legal residency per BATFE definition, which isn't that hard to satisfy. There are a bunch of other 100% legal hacks too that are out there that don't get discussed frequently for obvious reasons.

-Mike

Correct. It's the 1968 GCA that prohibits residents from state "A" from buying a handgun in state "B". However, (I think this was brought up somewhere here before) this law was recently challenged and I think the courts are going back and forth on it.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ules-residency-requirements-pistol-/?page=all

 

[drgrant]

Correct. It's the 1968 GCA that prohibits residents from state "A" from buying a handgun in state "B". However, (I think this was brought up somewhere here before) this law was recently challenged and I think the courts are going back and forth on it.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ules-residency-requirements-pistol-/?page=all

There is that case, but there's another even better case.... Death V Holder, IIRC..... good case because it really puts all the bullshit on its ear.... you can't deny a citizen their rights just because they can't make a permanent residency claim. The funny thing is is BATFE sort of recognizes this in recognizing the nebulousness of residency, but the problem Mr. Dearth has is that he doesn't really get to claim residency in any one given state, which is a unique problem.

http://www.comm2a.org/index.php/43-cases-to-watch/160-dearth

I think they just reheard arguments or something in march, according to what Terraformer wrote in the other thread... not sure where it is now. But it has a lot of merit, its just that the judges are being scum and trying to dodge/moot this one because it's impossible to rule on it without punching a hole in the law at the end.

-Mike

 

[M1911]

Exist or not, does this ghost list even backed by the law? Can you be sued by the state if found with a gun that is in the official​ EEOPS list but not in the nowhere-to-be-found AG ghost list?

If you read the CMR, you will see that it binds what a dealer can sell, not what you can buy, possess, or carry.

- - - Updated - - -

OK, no need to get upset

So what prevents me (legally) to buy a gun not on the list in NH or anywhere else?

Federal law.

 

[pupchow]

There already is a case. Check out Draper v. Healy.

Comm2A could use some dough by the way...

That complaint deals with clarification of a regulation, not a punitive action, correct? Wouldn't it cut to the chase if a punitive action were appealed? And no, I'm no volunteering, directly.