Comm2A files against the AG on LCIs, Draper v Coakley

[Bonesinium]

The press is against us.

Yep!

The politicians are against is.

Yep!

The state judiciary is against us.

Yep!

And the majority of the citizens are against us.

Yep!

Media coverage is based on sound bites and emotions.

Yep!

Factual arguments can seldom be made in a sound bite.

Yep!

Furthermore, you can seldom use logic to convince someone out of a position that the didn't use logic to get into in the first place.

Yep!

Our best hope is in the federal court system. Comm2a is working towards it. It will be a slow process.

Ye...wait, what?!? You nailed all of the above and then think there is hope in the federal court system? Good one! You almost had me for a second.

 

[Reptile]

Originally Posted by jsacco41 View Post
The AG basically just says we are the ones with the final say and we do not have to issue any opinion as to what constitutes compliance until we are prosecuting someone

Thanks, is my understanding at least somewhat correct?

Absoolootlie.

If that is the case - get somebody to blatantly sell some new Glocks.

If they ever get prosecuted then you have your case.

Maybe the AG is bluffing and will not even prosecute.

 

[JayMcB]

Originally Posted by jsacco41 View Post
The AG basically just says we are the ones with the final say and we do not have to issue any opinion as to what constitutes compliance until we are prosecuting someone





If that is the case - get somebody to blatantly sell some new Glocks.

If they ever get prosecuted then you have your case.

Maybe the AG is bluffing and will not even prosecute.

They're not bluffing. They will prosecute. And unlike we mere taxpayers, they have an unlimited source of funds (our tax dollars) to continue the fight.

 

[M1911]

Yep! Yep! Yep! Yep! Yep! Yep! Yep! Ye...wait, what?!? You nailed all of the above and then think there is hope in the federal court system? Good one! You almost had me for a second.

Sure there is. Heller v DC. MacDonald. Comm2a's most recent win.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Sure there is. Heller v DC. MacDonald. Comm2a's most recent win.

We had our day in federal court, and a second day before a three judge appeal panel. We are waiting for a decision on the appeal, however, we did not exactly hit the jackpot on the pick of three judges. Due to the points of law being argued (does the AG have the authority, must the AG issue a priori opinions, etc.) it never got to the point of even discussing if the loaded chamber indicator is effective.

The AG also stated there was a "Certification process", but our side was not given a chance to refute it. Our attorney filed supplemental info, however, the AG has filed a motion to have that deemed inadmissable by the court on procedural grounds.

The "certification process" the AG alluded to was the manufacture sending the AG a letter saying they comply, and *hoping* the AG does not disagree at at a future time, as the AG does not send out responses confirming a certification has been accepted as valid.

 

[JohnZ]

Comm2A is a non-profit, charitable organization. It is a 501c3. It has no employees. I don't think running a gun shop would make any sense at all.

I realize that. I'm not very versed on legal stuff but I remember seeing .gov arguments saying that Comm2A does not have standing. If there was a way to have a separate "division" that was a MA firearms dealer, it seems to me that .gov could no longer argue that they had no standing in any suits that involved MA firearms dealers. They could sell one non-compliant gun and see if it draws legal action from the AG.

 

[Len-2A Training]

I realize that. I'm not very versed on legal stuff but I remember seeing .gov arguments saying that Comm2A does not have standing. If there was a way to have a separate "division" that was a MA firearms dealer, it seems to me that .gov could no longer argue that they had no standing in any suits that involved MA firearms dealers. They could sell one non-compliant gun and see if it draws legal action from the AG.

Comm2A resolved that problem and the AG won't do battle with a dealer who only sells one non-compliant gun.

 

[Coyote33]

Comm2A resolved that problem and the AG won't do battle with a dealer who only sells one non-compliant gun.

When did they resolve that problem, and how?

Did the AG say they won't do this, or is this just conjecture on your part?

 

[firestorm]

When did they resolve that problem, and how?

Did the AG say they won't do this, or is this just conjecture on your part?

Its too obvious a ploy. They read this forum too, and are not going to just hand you a pure case to bring against them.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Comm2A resolved that problem and the AG won't do battle with a dealer who only sells one non-compliant gun.

Comm2A was ruled not to have standing, but Draper, Boudrie, et. al. were ruled to have standing.

Comm2A has changed to a "membership org" in an attempt to boost our reasons for standing in future cases.

 

[spt_1955]

When did they resolve that problem, and how?

Did the AG say they won't do this, or is this just conjecture on your part?

They became a "membership" organization. Now they have members to represent.

(Sorry ROb .. you beat me to this answer!!!)

 

[NewGuyRay]

So, if I understand the AG's position correctly, under their consumer protection powers, they could issue a new regulation requiring that every car sold by a dealer in Mass have a satisfactory collision avoidance system and provide no details as to what, in their view, constitutes a satisfactory collision avoidance system. Then, they could arbitrarily pick a make of car they don't want people driving, Kia for instance, issue an edict that Kias do not provide a satisfactory collision avoidance system and notify all car dealers in the state that they will be subject to enforcement action if they sell another Kia vehicle? Finally, they can refuse to provide Kia with any guidance on how they could modify their vehicles so they meet the AG's standard and become eligible for sale in Mass?

Seriously, as ridiculous as that sounds, with what product other than guns could the AG's office get away such authoritarian action? Under these claimed powers, the AG's office could easily snuff out sales at marijuana dispensaries if they so chose but likely would never do so.

 

[jsacco41]

She did enact regulations about e cigarettes last fall under the guise of consumer protection

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[milktree]

So, if I understand the AG's position correctly, under their consumer protection powers, they could issue a new regulation requiring that every car sold by a dealer in Mass have a satisfactory collision avoidance system and provide no details as to what, in their view, constitutes a satisfactory collision avoidance system. Then, they could arbitrarily pick a make of car they don't want people driving, Kia for instance, issue an edict that Kias do not provide a satisfactory collision avoidance system and notify all car dealers in the state that they will be subject to enforcement action if they sell another Kia vehicle? Finally, they can refuse to provide Kia with any guidance on how they could modify their vehicles so they meet the AG's standard and become eligible for sale in Mass?

Seriously, as ridiculous as that sounds, with what product other than guns could the AG's office get away such authoritarian action? Under these claimed powers, the AG's office could easily snuff out sales at marijuana dispensaries if they so chose but likely would never do so.

Yes, you've got it exactly right.

You know, 'cuz Glocks are bad... 'Mkay?

 

[economist]

The vast majority of Mass residents are anti-gun. The Mass courts are hugely biased against guns. These are the real sources of the AG's power, and why the AG is comfortable using the consumer protection nonsense in the gun world, but not necessarily anywhere else where a similar argument could be made. In short, the AG's willingness to "protect" consumers is limited to instances where the politics are in the AG's favor.

 

[drgrant]

They're not bluffing. They will prosecute.

Not sure if serious, if you know the history/back intel of this issue you know that isn't universally true. Targets are chosen opportunistically, I'll just leave it at that.

-Mike

 

[MisterHappy]

The vast majority of Mass residents are anti-gun. The Mass courts are hugely biased against guns. These are the real sources of the AG's power, and why the AG is comfortable using the consumer protection nonsense in the gun world, but not necessarily anywhere else where a similar argument could be made. In short, the AG's willingness to "protect" consumers is limited to instances where the politics are in the AG's favor.

Vox populi, vox dei is an old theory of governance

 

[mark056]

The vast majority of Mass residents are anti-gun. The Mass courts are hugely biased against guns. These are the real sources of the AG's power, and why the AG is comfortable using the consumer protection nonsense in the gun world, but not necessarily anywhere else where a similar argument could be made. In short, the AG's willingness to "protect" consumers is limited to instances where the politics are in the AG's favor.

I'm not so sure if the vast majority of Mass Residents are anti gun so much as they are ambivalent. They will go along with "reasonable gun control measures" because they have no dog in the fight and the arguments put forth in their favor seem superficially logical.

 

[drgrant]

The vast majority of Mass residents are anti-gun. The Mass courts are hugely biased against guns. These are the real sources of the AG's power, and why the AG is comfortable using the consumer protection nonsense in the gun world, but not necessarily anywhere else where a similar argument could be made. In short, the AG's willingness to "protect" consumers is limited to instances where the politics are in the AG's favor.

I wouldn't go that far, that's giving antis too much credit... I'd say the biggest problem is most MA residents just don't care, as Mark suggests. Most don't have a clue or concern about MA gun law one way or the other.

 

[terraformer]

The vast majority of Mass residents are anti-gun. The Mass courts are hugely biased against guns. These are the real sources of the AG's power, and why the AG is comfortable using the consumer protection nonsense in the gun world, but not necessarily anywhere else where a similar argument could be made. In short, the AG's willingness to "protect" consumers is limited to instances where the politics are in the AG's favor.

Bingo... Look at this bull shit with the fantasy sports. If it's gambling, then how can the AG make it "legal"? If it's not gambling, how can the AG regulate it as an unfair and deceptive trade practice? It's popular, so she dares not try to ban it, but strangling it with some regs was politically palatable. Period. 93A is a massive executive power grab that the legislature is too chicken shit to curb. This is why no other AG has tried it w/ guns. They are rightfully afraid of their legislature's reaction to the power grab.

 

[Garys]

And just this week released proposed regulations for Fan Duel and similar on line "non" gambling sites.

She did enact regulations about e cigarettes last fall under the guise of consumer protection

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Waher]

So, if I understand the AG's position correctly, under their consumer protection powers, they could issue a new regulation requiring that every car sold by a dealer in Mass have a satisfactory collision avoidance system and provide no details as to what, in their view, constitutes a satisfactory collision avoidance system. Then, they could arbitrarily pick a make of car they don't want people driving, Kia for instance, issue an edict that Kias do not provide a satisfactory collision avoidance system and notify all car dealers in the state that they will be subject to enforcement action if they sell another Kia vehicle? Finally, they can refuse to provide Kia with any guidance on how they could modify their vehicles so they meet the AG's standard and become eligible for sale in Mass?

Seriously, as ridiculous as that sounds, with what product other than guns could the AG's office get away such authoritarian action? Under these claimed powers, the AG's office could easily snuff out sales at marijuana dispensaries if they so chose but likely would never do so.

Someday if the enabling legislation isn't changed an AG on a power trip will pull that against the wrong product and incur the wrath of the legislature or an industry with deep pockets for lawfare.

At some point the courts and legislature are going to take a dim view of executive fabrication of law by decree and slap back hard.

 

[71montess]

Someday if the enabling legislation isn't changed an AG on a power trip will pull that against the wrong product and incur the wrath of the legislature or an industry with deep pockets for lawfare.

At some point the courts and legislature are going to take a dim view of executive fabrication of law by decree and slap back hard.

In my lifetime ?

 

[M1911]

In my lifetime ?

Good question.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Bingo... Look at this bull shit with the fantasy sports. If it's gambling, then how can the AG make it "legal"?

By calling it a "game of skill".

But then, estimating the point spread on a football game and deciding what bet to place with Guido the corner bookie is also a game of skill, but betting on the daily number is not.

 

[terraformer]

By calling it a "game of skill".

But then, estimating the point spread on a football game and deciding what bet to place with Guido the corner bookie is also a game of skill, but betting on the daily number is not.

But if its a "game of skill", how does it fall under 93A? It doesn't is the honest answer.

 

[browncoat]

But if its a "game of skill", how does it fall under 93A? It doesn't is the honest answer.

Yeah, they don't come up with a result based on logic, they just figure out what result they want and make excuses for it. It's so infuriating.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

But if its a "game of skill", how does it fall under 93A? It doesn't is the honest answer.

True, and if it is a game of skill, so is betting the point spread.

 

[economist]

I don't want to jump to conclusions here, but it really looks like the AG may not be applying consistent logic to the law and her regulatory duties...

 

[browncoat]

True, and if it is a game of skill, so is betting the point spread.

The new prediction marketplaces that are springing up are toeing even closer to the line (I think) than fantasy sports.