Comm2A files against the AG on LCIs, Draper v Coakley

[rivet_42]

I can't imagine that anyone ever thought that 940 CMR 16.00 was a bona fide consumer-protection regulation and wasn't an attempt to do through the regulatory process what couldn't be done legislatively, even in Mass., namely legislate or regulate handguns out of existence.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

if the AG is admitting that Glock has an LCI but they just don't like it, doesnt that defeat their case by default?

The AG is basically arguing "we have the right to set and interpret regulations, and it is not the role of the court to question our interpretation".

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.".

Sure, that is easy .... if you can get the court to agree that "effective or not" is a valid issue.

 

[M1911]

That is true. But, he was still right.

He said:

My point is that the arbitrary regulations put forward by the AG allows the ppq to not be on the roster.

The AG's arbitrary regulations (940 CMR 16.00) don't have a damn thing to do with the Approved Firearms Roster. The Approved Firearms Roster is governed by statute, not by the AG's regulations.

 

[Gooman24]

He said:



The AG's arbitrary regulations (940 CMR 16.00) don't have a damn thing to do with the Approved Firearms Roster. The Approved Firearms Roster is governed by statute, not by the AG's regulations.

You are absolutely right and you also know that's not what I was talking about. Either way I am not going to muck up this thread.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[Chevy 2 65]

The AG is basically arguing "we have the right to set and interpret regulations, and it is not the role of the court to question our interpretation".


Sure, that is easy .... if you can get the court to agree that "effective or not" is a valid issue.

If the AG can set that interpretation for firearms, what is stopping that office for making interpretations on other things? like cars, trucks, tools, etc...

 

[drgrant]

If the AG can set that interpretation for firearms, what is stopping that office for making interpretations on other things? like cars, trucks, tools, etc...

The compliance BS comes up because I think there is some specific hook in MGL that authorizes 940 CMR S16....

-Mike

 

[terraformer]

The compliance BS comes up because I think there is some specific hook in MGL that authorizes 940 CMR S16....

-Mike

Negative. Only some of the AGs regs are authorized by statute. The rest, including the LCI, hinge upon federal consumer protection law.

 

[economist]

Negative. Only some of the AGs regs are authorized by statute. The rest, including the LCI, hinge upon federal consumer protection law.

I admit not following this very closely (but very much appreciating Comm2A's work). If the Mass AG is hanging her policy on federal law, it's a least a little interesting that just about no other state sees it her way -- that is, you can buy Glocks just about everywhere. Or I'm just confused. Probably the latter.

 

[drgrant]

Negative. Only some of the AGs regs are authorized by statute. The rest, including the LCI, hinge upon federal consumer protection law.

So basically, most of CMR940 is the AG using some kind of mechanism thats granted to them by the feds? If this is the case then my guess is other states either don't elect commie AGs or they have some law in place that blocks the AG from doing this. Probably mostly the former.

 

[browncoat]

I admit not following this very closely (but very much appreciating Comm2A's work). If the Mass AG is hanging her policy on federal law, it's a least a little interesting that just about no other state sees it her way -- that is, you can buy Glocks just about everywhere. Or I'm just confused. Probably the latter.

So basically, most of CMR940 is the AG using some kind of mechanism thats granted to them by the feds? If this is the case then my guess is other states either don't elect commie AGs or they have some law in place that blocks the AG from doing this. Probably mostly the former.

AG promulgates 940 regs based on MA state law consumer protection, not feds. See M.G.L. c. 93A, § 2(c).

 

[terraformer]

AG promulgates 940 regs based on MA state law consumer protection, not feds. See M.G.L. c. 93A, § 2(c).

What part of §2(b) was not clear?

 

[terraformer]

I admit not following this very closely (but very much appreciating Comm2A's work). If the Mass AG is hanging her policy on federal law, it's a least a little interesting that just about no other state sees it her way -- that is, you can buy Glocks just about everywhere. Or I'm just confused. Probably the latter.

Someone, including more than a few judges, are confused, but it's not you. This is a tortuous interpretation of federal law. The AG, and amicus, has gone out of their way to pollute this case with a lot of unrelated crap for a reason.

 

[browncoat]

What part of §2(b) was not clear?

Well, I'm an idiot.

 

[MachineHead]

Someone, including more than a few judges, are confused, but it's not you. This is a tortuous interpretation of federal law. The AG, and amicus, has gone out of their way to pollute this case with a lot of unrelated crap for a reason.

If Comm2A wins this case, can this then become case law to clarify the degree to which the MA AG can or cannot regulate?

 

[Coyote33]

Someone, including more than a few judges, are confused, but it's not you. This is a tortuous interpretation of federal law. The AG, and amicus, has gone out of their way to pollute this case with a lot of unrelated crap for a reason.

So herein lies the crux of it, I guess. How to completely convince the judge to see the light.

 

[bigblue]

So herein lies the crux of it, I guess. How to completely convince the judge to see the light.

My guess is that involves a lot of "donations".

 

[Reptile]

Oh noes... the loaded chamber indicator does not indicate enough.

Ok, fine, how about this solution then...

Lets treat ALL Glocks as if they are loaded???

With that sort of logic it is as if a nuclear bomb just landed on Healey's desk.



If she had to justify that logic her brain would overheat and explode.

 

[REDSFIREARMS]

Maybe if they change its color to REDS that should be enough...


"Exclusivity is for everyone. Try us! You'll find us refreshing."

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

If Comm2A wins this case, can this then become case law to clarify the degree to which the MA AG can or cannot regulate?

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. If we do win it all depends upon what the decision is. And winning wouldn't be something that happens anytime soon. If the First Circuit does see things our way, the case is likely to be remanded back to the district for further proceedings.

Maybe if they change its color to REDS that should be enough...


"Exclusivity is for everyone. Try us! You'll find us refreshing."

No, that wouldn't work because they're still Glocks. The whole point of the AG's interpretation was to prevent Massachusetts consumers from being able to purchase one of the most popular firearms in the US.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

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?

No.

The AG's position can be summed up as "We can set any regulation we want, and the AG's office is the sole and final arbiter as to the interpretation and reasonableness of such regulation."

If the AG's position that they are final judge of their own regulation is upheld, any issue as to the actual merits of the regulation itself becomes a moot point.

Cases often hinge on specific legal points unrelated to logic. For example, we lost the bonded warehouse case because the court found that a bonded warehouse is not a "state actor" and, as such, all arguments pertaining to the reasonableness or fairness of bonded warehouse business practices are irrelevant and cannot even be argued in court.

 

[rivet_42]

The AG, and amicus, has gone out of their way to pollute this case with a lot of unrelated crap for a reason.

"If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If both the facts and the law are against you, pound the table."

 

[Mr. Brownstone]

In response to these tragedies and the sobering statistics on accidental firearms fatalities, the Massachusetts Attorney General proposed a set of regulations designed to reduce unintentional firearms deaths and injuries, promote firearms safety, and assure consumers that handguns sold in Massachusetts were merchantable.

Were the people who pulled the trigger in these cases charged? Assuming someone "unintentionally" shoots someone with a gun that does not have an LCI in MA, is it fair to say that the attorney general will not pursue charges, because there was no way for them to know the gun was loaded?

How about their LTC? How can they be deemed "unsuitable" if there is no way to determine that a round was in the chamber?

Perhaps it could be reasoned, that a person deemed "suitable" by their chief of police to own and carry firearms, is competent enough to determine whether or not their firearm is loaded, with or without an LCI.

 

[JayMcB]

her brain would overheat and explode.

it would be a very small explosion. My wager would be she doesn't actually WRITE a word of this, since she is a feckless and incompetent political whore

Were the people who pulled the trigger in these cases charged? Assuming someone "unintentionally" shoots someone with a gun that does not have an LCI in MA, is it fair to say that the attorney general will not pursue charges, because there was no way for them to know the gun was loaded?

How about their LTC? How can they be deemed "unsuitable" if there is no way to determine that a round was in the chamber?

Perhaps it could be reasoned, that a person deemed "suitable" by their chief of police to own and carry firearms, is competent enough to determine whether or not their firearm is loaded, with or without an LCI.

THIS

The simplest solution is to always treat any firearm as though it were loaded. But her mouth drooling supporters lack the cranial capacity to make that intellectual leap

 

[yanici]

For safety's sake I always carry a toothpick in my holster. That way I can stick it in the itty bitty LCI hole and if hits something I know the gun is loaded. Pretty smart, huh?

 

[wmass]

The mass hole is there to shine a light through when you're looking in to the barrel to see if loaded.

 

[economist]

The LCI: Actively undermining safe gun handling in the name of safety. Brought to you by liberals who don't understand guns. For the children, somehow.

 

[ColdDayInHell]

The LCI: Actively undermining safe gun handling in the name of safety. Brought to you by liberals who don't understand guns. For the children, somehow.

+1

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

The LCI: Actively undermining safe gun handling in the name of safety. Brought to you by liberals who don't understand guns. For the children, somehow.

The LCI was never intended to be a 'safety' feature and things like the AG's regs really pollute the device's original purpose. LCIs have been a feature of some guns since at least 1934 and probably earlier. Remember, at that time, people (like in the military) frequently didn't carry are round in the chamber. The purpose of the LCI is to inform or assure the user that the chamber is charged (or not) and that the gun is ready to use. No LCI => rack your slide. The idea that it's a warning device is simple silly.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

Negative. Only some of the AGs regs are authorized by statute. The rest, including the LCI, hinge upon federal consumer protection law.

Federal Consumer Protection law ? How? https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-consumer-protection

This state is a joke this *******s pick and choose which fed law to follow.

 

[TayNinh_66]

No.
The AG's position can be summed up as "We can set any regulation we want, and the AG's office is the sole and final arbiter as to the interpretation and reasonableness of such regulation." If the AG's position that they are final judge of their own regulation is upheld, any issue as to the actual merits of the regulation itself becomes a moot point.

"I know it when I see it"

I don't want to get into who has standing to do what, but I am confused about COMM2A's vagueness approach. AG said:
"The handguns presently manufactured by Glock, Inc. ("Glock") are not incompliance with the Massachusetts Handgun Sales Regulations, because they lack aneffective load indicator or magazine safety disconnect. This Office notified Glock ofthis fact in 2004, and since that time Glock has not notified this Office of any change..."

The briefs seem to address only the load indicator, and there is nothing addressing the mag safety disconnect. Why did that disappear from the briefs?
The Glock load indicator is a joke. I don't think anyone seriously considers a .002" protrusion to be an effective load indicator. Is it COMM2A's position that the .002 is effective? and is it COMM2A's position that Glocks have a mag safety disconnect?

Or is this case simply I don't think the AG has authority to regulate safety and load indicators are meaningless in any case.