Comm2A files against the AG on LCIs, Draper v Coakley

[Chevy 2 65]

Only in MA under the arcane AG regulations can a pre-1998 Glock without a LCI be legal for sale by a dealer, but a post-1998 Glock with a LCI be illegal to sell by a dealer. Do these .gov fools understand how stupid they really are?

Amen!

 

[jsacco41]

Only in MA under the arcane AG regulations can a pre-1998 Glock without a LCI be legal for sale by a dealer, but a post-1998 Glock with a LCI be illegal to sell by a dealer. Do these .gov fools understand how stupid they really are?

Yes, because the children, or something of the sort.

 

[M125X]

Only in MA under the arcane AG regulations can a pre-1998 Glock without a LCI be legal for sale by a dealer, but a post-1998 Glock with a LCI be illegal to sell by a dealer. Do these .gov fools understand how stupid they really are?

This X10000000!!!!!!!!!

Seriously do they realize how STUPID they are?!?!

 

[wahsben]

Obfuscation is the name of the game when it comes to politicians & government.

 

[bgoum]

Only in MA under the arcane AG regulations can a pre-1998 Glock without a LCI be legal for sale by a dealer, but a post-1998 Glock with a LCI be illegal to sell by a dealer. Do these .gov fools understand how stupid they really are?

Actually, no. No they don't. They are saving the children!

 

[Darksideblues42]

My plain reading shows the Glock manual at the end of the brief clearly identifies a loaded chamber indicator.

How can the AG say there is no loaded chamber indicator if there is one? Logical failure is strong with this one.

 

[Drix]

chamber indicator if there is one? Logical failure is strong with this one.

The same way the AG decided the VP9 is MA compliant and the PPQ is not- Arbitrary bullshit.

 

[MachineHead]

Only in MA under the arcane AG regulations can a pre-1998 Glock without a LCI be legal for sale by a dealer, but a post-1998 Glock with a LCI be illegal to sell by a dealer. Do these .gov fools understand how stupid they really are?

If pictures of LCIs are allowed, I'd love to see the AG refute Glockster30's succinct response.

ETA: pictures are submitted as "exhibits"

 

[drgrant]

Only in MA under the arcane AG regulations can a pre-1998 Glock without a LCI be legal for sale by a dealer, but a post-1998 Glock with a LCI be illegal to sell by a dealer. Do these .gov fools understand how stupid they really are?

This is because the law prohibits the AG from touching those guns. They are exempt from CMR 940 by law and the AG can't do crap about it. So technically those guns are not under the regulations, they are complete outside of the scope of the regulations.

 

[MachineHead]

Are LCIs proprietary in their appearance? If so, then page 94 is where the AG may have shot herself in the foot. It's a page from an actual Glock manual which clearly shows and explains the LCI of the Glock by Glock, Inc.

 

[Hoover]

Are LCIs proprietary in their appearance? If so, then page 94 is where the AG may have shot herself in the foot. It's a page from an actual Glock manual which clearly shows and explains the LCI of the Glock by Glock, Inc.

But the AG says that is not a LCI as they define it. We all know the sky is blue but the AG is saying it's purple and no matter what you present as evidence, they will never agree it's anything but purple.

 

[Varmint]

Only in MA under the arcane AG regulations can a pre-1998 Glock without a LCI be legal for sale by a dealer, but a post-1998 Glock with a LCI be illegal to sell by a dealer. Do these .gov fools understand how stupid they really are?

They're not stupid, their goal is to harrass law abiding gun owners, in any way they can.

- - - Updated - - -

The same way the AG decided the VP9 is MA compliant and the PPQ is not- Arbitrary bullshit.

The PPQ is not on the roster, it's not the AG's doing.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

If pictures of LCIs are allowed, I'd love to see the AG refute Glockster30's succinct response.

ETA: pictures are submitted as "exhibits"

The legal issues are more subtle.

It it was about the facts, we have very solid arguments.

The court first has to accept that the AG does not have unlimited power to issue regulations, and act as the final arbiter as to the reasonableness and legality of those regulations.

 

[Drix]

The PPQ is not on the roster, it's not the AG's doing.

My point is that the arbitrary regulations put forward by the AG allows the ppq to not be on the roster. For all intents and purposes they are identical guns.

 

[M1911]

My point is that the arbitrary regulations put forward by the AG allows the ppq to not be on the roster. For all intents and purposes they are identical guns.

The AG's rules don't have a damn thing to do with the Roster. The only reason that the PPQ is not on the roster is that Walther decided not to pay to have it tested.

 

[Drix]

The only reason that the PPQ is not on the roster is that Walther decided not to pay to have it tested.

This is incorrect- PPQ failed compliance testing.

Source: Called Walther about it.

 

[crazymjb]

My plain reading shows the Glock manual at the end of the brief clearly identifies a loaded chamber indicator.

How can the AG say there is no loaded chamber indicator if there is one? Logical failure is strong with this one.

The goal of their brief is essentially to do what they can to "plant the seed" that their argument is the right one. It's like highly technical persuasive writing. Its obviously bullshit, but they aren't going to help themselves out by admitting what is obvious to all of us in plain language.

Mike

 

[JJ4]

This here is a polished turd of an argument (pg. 14 of the brief):

As an alternative basis for affirmance, the dealer plaintiffs lack standing toassert their vagueness claims. They ask this Court to invalidate the load indicatorclause of Section 16.05(3) if this Court determines that the term “load indicator” isunconstitutionally vague. But if the load indicator clause of the regulation wereinvalidated, the alternative clause in the regulation—that is, that handguns must besold with a magazine safety disconnect—would remain. Because Glock pistolslack a magazine safety disconnect, they would remain unavailable for sale inMassachusetts, even if the dealer plaintiffs prevail on their vagueness claim.Because the dealer plaintiffs’ requested remedy would not address their allegedinjury, they cannot demonstrate the redressability component of Article IIIstanding.

What they're essentially saying is that the regulation "requires a load indicator or a magazine safety disconnect" and that if you deleted the words "a load indicator or", then the regulation would read "requires a magazine safety disconnect".


What's really aggravating about this whole case, is that through the whole damn thing, the AG refuses to answer a very simple question: "Gen 3 and Gen 4 Glocks actually do have a loaded chamber indicator. What facts are behind your indication that they do not have an effective loaded chamber indicator?"

Instead, they argue that we do not have a right to question their interpretation :

Moreover, any disagreement they have with the AGO’s determination isirrelevant. A vagueness claim must be premised upon lack of fair notice, and so only allows a regulated entity to protest its inability to conform its conduct to thelaw; it does not allow the regulated entity to air its disagreement with the lawenforcement agency’s interpretation of the law

The District Court’s only role in analyzing the dealer plaintiffs’ vaguenessclaim was to consider the question of fair notice; it was not to determine whetherthe AGO correctly applied Section 16.05(3) to particular handguns.

This is as close as they come, but the argument is basically "it doesn't plainly indicate enough":

Even a cursory review of the extractor device included on third and fourthgeneration Glock pistols reveals that it does not “plainly indicate” when a cartridgeis in the firing chamber. Two manuals for Glock pistols, attached as exhibits to thecomplaint, show images of the extractor. See Add. 19, 23.21 From those images, itis difficult to discern the difference between the position of the extractor in theloaded and unloaded positions. See id. The imperceptible protuberance on the sideof the pistol does not obviously signal to users when the gun is loaded, especially 21 These documents, cited in the Addendum, were attached as Exhibits 42 and43 to the complaint, and are included on pages 174-a through –f of theSupplemental Joint Appendix. For ease of reference, the Attorney General has alsoincluded them in her Addendum. when compared with other handguns’ load indicators that use, for example, coloredwarnings, textual warnings, and pins that protrude conspicuously. See, e.g., Add.9–10, 14, 17.22 For that reason, the Glock extractor is unlikely to effectively guardagainst the accidental handgun discharges Section 16.05(3) seeks to prevent.The dealer plaintiffs complain that the AGO’s letters did not explain why aGlock pistol’s extractor does not qualify as a load indicator. Appellants’ Br. at 46,50. But as explained above, the answer is self-evident.

 

[M1911]

This is incorrect- PPQ failed compliance testing. Source: Called Walther about it.

That still doesn't have a darn thing to do with the AG.

The Approved Firearms Roster != 940 CMR 16.00

 

[bigblue]

Petitioners' argument is that the Glock pistol DOES in fact have an LCI. Therefore if the court agrees, they have fulfilled the first half of the "or" statement and the second half is irrelevant. Glock pistols do not need a magazine disconnect if they have an LCI.

 

[drgrant]

This is incorrect- PPQ failed compliance testing.

Source: Called Walther about it.

Regardless, it has nothing to do with the AG or CMR940 and is outside the scope of this discussion.

-Mike

 

[StevieP]

How the phuck do police and troopers in MA have these guns ISSUED to them when they're so obviously unsafe?

 

[Gooman24]

That still doesn't have a darn thing to do with the AG.

The Approved Firearms Roster != 940 CMR 16.00

That is true. But, he was still right.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[rickinma]

That polished turd is interesting - glock should release a mass version with a large pink or orange flag that plainly indicates from across the room if it is loaded - but, of course, make it easily replaceable with a normal part so you can actually holster it once the dealers obligation to comply with the AG's bullshit is out of the way

 

[drgrant]

I love the condescending tone of the brief... "everyone should know what an lci is"

 

[teaser452]

That polished turd is interesting - glock should release a mass version with a large pink or orange flag that plainly indicates from across the room if it is loaded - but, of course, make it easily replaceable with a normal part so you can actually holster it once the dealers obligation to comply with the AG's bullshit is out of the way

that is brilliant. You really should email Glock with that idea. I'd buy a dozen if they actially
did that just to mock the AG and MA.

 

[Len-2A Training]

How the phuck do police and troopers in MA have these guns ISSUED to them when they're so obviously unsafe?

Simple . . . because collateral damage when police use them is perfectly acceptable and they aren't accountable for "accidentally" shooting people they weren't aiming at! Sad but fact.

 

[deezwho]

Maybe I don't understand legal arguments that much ... if the AG is admitting that Glock has an LCI but they just don't like it, doesnt that defeat their case by default?
In the enforcement notice that the AG sent out it says "If the handgun is a semiautomatic pistol, does it have either a load indicator or a magazinesafety disconnect (Section 16.05(3))? Again, if you are unsure, ask the manufacturer."

So Glock says it has one ... where does it say "if you are unsure ask the AG"

 

[Coyote33]

Only in MA under the arcane AG regulations can a pre-1998 Glock without a LCI be legal for sale by a dealer, but a post-1998 Glock with a LCI be illegal to sell by a dealer. Do these .gov fools understand how stupid they really are?

This is SO true, it bears repeating!

This X10000000!!!!!!!!!

Seriously do they realize how STUPID they are?!?!

And this!

My plain reading shows the Glock manual at the end of the brief clearly identifies a loaded chamber indicator.

How can the AG say there is no loaded chamber indicator if there is one? Logical failure is strong with this one.

If pictures of LCIs are allowed, I'd love to see the AG refute Glockster30's succinct response.

ETA: pictures are submitted as "exhibits"

Maybe I don't understand legal arguments that much ... if the AG is admitting that Glock has an LCI but they just don't like it, doesnt that defeat their case by default?
In the enforcement notice that the AG sent out it says "If the handgun is a semiautomatic pistol, does it have either a load indicator or a magazinesafety disconnect (Section 16.05(3))? Again, if you are unsure, ask the manufacturer."

So Glock says it has one ... where does it say "if you are unsure ask the AG"

Isn't this the point where you bring in "EXPERT WITNESSES", or something like that? Basically, bring in engineers, and others who will testify that "Yes, indeed, this IS an LCI.".

Petitioners' argument is that the Glock pistol DOES in fact have an LCI. Therefore if the court agrees, they have fulfilled the first half of the "or" statement and the second half is irrelevant. Glock pistols do not need a magazine disconnect if they have an LCI.

Great point.

 

[spt_1955]

I hate to pour water on this conversation but for all you people who continue to try and understand the AG justification of 940 cmr 16 and the ruling against Glocks LCI please read.....

http://www.goal.org/regulationpages/fraudreport.html