Comm2A files against the AG on LCIs, Draper v Coakley

Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Joined
Mar 9, 2012
Messages
693
Likes
149
Location
Boston
If the main issue is that the LCI isn't good enough in the eyes of the AG and Courts, what if someone machined a drop in replacement extractor that was big and red (and said ruger on it?) Would this satisfy the requirement and open a door for dealers to sell without fear of AG action? That's got to be a better alternative to the stupid milled out LCI that some dealers have been doing. I'd much rather have a replaceable part than a hole in my slide.
Still wondering this.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
59   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
70,117
Likes
30,197
Mike,
How is it not an issue that Glock is selling what the AG considers a "dangerous" service weapon to 90% of the police departments in the state?
A couple of points:

The CMR940 bullshit isn't directly asserting that the gun is dangerous, only that an "unfair or deceptive trade practice" has taken place if a purveyor sells a consumer a handgun that does not have that feature on it. Basically her ****ed up logic is it is like buying a new car that doesn't come with airbags. That doesn't mean the car is extraordinarily dangerous but the AG rationale on paper is "Well, if someone buys a new car and it comes without airbags, something we consider a common safety feature, they are being ripped off/defrauded"

Everyone outside of the the AGs office and perhaps the judge(s) that wrote this shitty decision pretty much know that CMR940 is pretty much a garbage regulation, from outward appearances it is a joke. Nobody takes it seriously. Particularly given that the state already has a LAW mandating actual SAFETY TESTING of handguns (where people test the handguns using metrics established by the state) etc. If this entire thing was an argument about whether "it is actually safe" the AGs office would have lost a long time ago.

-Mike
 
Last edited:

MachineHead

NES Member
Rating - 100%
65   0   0
Joined
Nov 12, 2014
Messages
8,288
Likes
3,466
Location
Central MA
A couple of points:

The CMR940 bullshit isn't directly asserting that the gun is dangerous, only that an "unfair or deceptive trade practice" has taken place if a purveyor sells a consumer a handgun that does not have that feature on it. Basically her ****ed up logic is it is like buying a new car that doesn't come with airbags. That doesn't mean the car is extraordinarily dangerous but the AG rationale on paper is "Well, if someone buys a new car and it comes without airbags, something we consider a common safety feature, they are being ripped off/defrauded"

Everyone outside of the the AGs office and perhaps the judge(s) that wrote this shitty decision pretty much know that CMR940 is pretty much a garbage regulation, from outward appearances it is a joke. Nobody takes it seriously. Particularly given that the state already has a LAW mandating actual SAFETY TESTING of handguns (where people test the handguns using metrics established by the state) etc. If this entire thing was an argument about whether "it is actually safe" the AGs office would have lost a long time ago.

-Mike
Would it be "unfair or deceptive trade practice" if the dealers were to give you a waiver that you sign accepting all responsibility with the Glock you would be willingly buying? Or does the AG have some shit rule saying we're not smart enough to read and choose for ourselves (yet we're "lucky" enough to be suitably licensed to carry a firearm in general) ?
 

TayNinh_66

NES Member
Rating - 100%
14   0   0
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
1,204
Likes
399
Location
East Boston
Maybe waiting until the climate cools down after last week and shooting for en band might be an idea. If this stands without exhausting our challenges then it's a certain defeat just how not playing the lottery will never give you a chance to win.
Seriously? Appeal? Did you read the decision? The Court of Appeals clearly stated the Glock LCI doesn't "plainly indicate" as required and they have no intention of ordering the State to start designing firearm safety features. They just as clearly stated the Defendants had a weak position. Very plain indication to me that an appeal will go nowhere.

Not playing the lottery may not give me a chance to win but I won't end up broke after spending my paycheck on scratch tickets. Neither would I spend my paycheck on endless motions, briefs, replies, that have no chance of succeeding. How much did Comm2A spend on this case to date?

Decision can be read at http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/15-1429P-01A.pdf
 

CatSnoutSoup

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jul 9, 2015
Messages
3,555
Likes
7,811
Location
Westgardminsterham MA
I know Glock's general counsel, and speak with him on a semi-regular basis. What can Glock do, short of risking poisoning their corporate reputation in the LE Community in general, to support MA citizens that is consistent with good business practice?
Rob,
You quoted me (not cited) so I will reply. No, it would not be the best business practice for Glock viewed strictly in the light of cost/benefit. My post did not fault them for their position, rather just pointed it out should anyone imagine that they (Glock) might somehow ride to the rescue. I perfectly understand Glock's position as a business, and in fact give them credit for apparently continuing to provide testing samples to the EOPSS despite knowing that the AG would continue to override.

No, as a corporation Glock owes Massachusetts nothing. Those who want unfettered access to Glock's products will have to take up the hard work of trying to effect change here on the ground as you guys have, although most probably in the voting booth not the courtroom.

BTW I told you when we meet earlier this year how much I respected your efforts, that goes double when you are shouldering a lose with class.

Good night, good luck.


P.S.> For a bit of snark -- folks buy a VP9 its the Glock you really want. [laugh]
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
59   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
70,117
Likes
30,197
Would it be "unfair or deceptive trade practice" if the dealers were to give you a waiver that you sign accepting all responsibility with the Glock you would be willingly buying? Or does the AG have some shit rule saying we're not smart enough to read and choose for ourselves (yet we're "lucky" enough to be suitably licensed to carry a firearm in general) ?
CMR940 has no provision for anything like that in it. I think some dealers tried doing stuff like that a long time ago (perhaps under Reilly or Harshbarger even)** but they still got whacked anyways. Then again I don't know if any of these dealers had the balls to go to court over it with the AGs office, either. They probably just caved with threats from the AG and their lawyers told them to "get off cheap" by signing consent decrees or other rubbish like that.

** = at this point it is patently obvious to me that when Harshbarger and his anti gun cohorts (like Angus McQuilliken, Jacques Rhymes with Fakes, Barrios, etc. ) came up with this CMR940 bullshit, some kind of "playbook" for it was quietly published internally- and the reason I say this is because ever since Harshbarger every dem AG has acted essentially exactly the same with regards to CMR940. Same predictable bullshit.

-Mike

- - - Updated - - -

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.
Didn't see this one earlier, but the AG's office already knows this.

The AGs office pushes this CMR940 bullshit "because the product is guns" and they know that gun owners and industry in MA, in most cases, stand from a position of political weakness.

-Mike
 
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
15,885
Likes
9,272
Location
Southern NH
Having read through the last few pages, I've noticed a surprising amount of logic and well reasoned points and not nearly enough emotional arguments. That's probably why most people aren't on the same page as these judges and the AG. Too factual. Not arbitrary enough. And not enough emotion.

People need to realize our judicial system and court system is not about justice. It's not about facts. It's not about being fair or unbiased. It's not about the rule of law. And it's certainly not about upholding rights. It's the illusion of some of those things while protecting the government and it's agents. We have no checks and balances. We do have three branches from the same tree watching each others backs.
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
9,956
Likes
3,238
Location
Green Eggs and...
So now its time for some enterprising gun shop/smith to start milling peep holes in the chamber, identical in dimension to their counterparts that meet the magic requirements.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
 
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Messages
8,418
Likes
3,508
Location
Milky Way
So now its time for some enterprising gun shop/smith to start milling peep holes in the chamber, identical in dimension to their counterparts that meet the magic requirements.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...

Already been done I believe, but there will be some issues with this, such as:

1) Will these guns with another feature added to it be considered a "new model Glock" and have to go through the same testing procedures at a laboratory because the AG says so? If so, EOPSS would probably agree with the AG. I don't know what it cost to send firearms to a laboratory for testing, but that would certainly raise the cost of the pistol, both for the machining and then the lab testing.

2) I doubt Glock would warranty the firearm after it's been altered by a machine shop.

3) If it's a post-1998 Glock Gen3 or Gen4 that needed a new frame, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Glock will not ship a post 1998 frame back to the MA owner that sent it in for replacement.
 

92G

NES Member
Rating - 99%
103   1   0
Joined
Mar 19, 2014
Messages
7,728
Likes
4,084
Location
Pangea
with respect to making a glock "AG-OK", we are trying to find black and white lines in an area that the AG is intentionally keeping gray. it's a moving target (on purpose). unfortunately i would be surprised to see many dealers willing to play guinea pig to modify a glock that is approved by the monarchy.
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Messages
8,418
Likes
3,508
Location
Milky Way
with respect to making a glock "AG-OK", we are trying to find black and white lines in an area that the AG is intentionally keeping gray. it's a moving target (on purpose). unfortunately i would be surprised to see many dealers willing to play guinea pig to modify a glock that is approved by the monarchy.
Very true, which is why in several of my past postings, the LCI should either be modified to fit guns already allowed by 940 CMR 16.00 or another device added to complement the existing LCI so that there is no leeway for the AG to deny the effectiveness of the LCI.
 
Rating - 100%
38   0   0
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Messages
8,465
Likes
1,502
So now its time for some enterprising gun shop/smith to start milling peep holes in the chamber, identical in dimension to their counterparts that meet the magic requirements.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
I don't want a firearm where the barrel has had any modifications. If it's not designed with a peep hole, how is anyone supposed to know it won't cause problems.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
559
Likes
238
I don't want a firearm where the barrel has had any modifications. If it's not designed with a peep hole, how is anyone supposed to know it won't cause problems.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

It's pretty easy to replace a barrel... There certainly is a premium to getting around the rules, but in the long run, costs a lot less than idealism.
 

rivet_42

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
1,083
Likes
502
Would it be "unfair or deceptive trade practice" if the dealers were to give you a waiver that you sign accepting all responsibility with the Glock you would be willingly buying? Or does the AG have some shit rule saying we're not smart enough to read and choose for ourselves (yet we're "lucky" enough to be suitably licensed to carry a firearm in general) ?
In general there are certain rights that you cannot contract away and that's a good thing.

For example, as a renter, my landlord cannot insert a clause in my lease stating that I am waiving the rights granted me as a tenant by landlord-tenant laws, and if he did, such a clause would swiftly be found null-and-void.
 

Rob Boudrie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
35,794
Likes
12,992
For example, as a renter, my landlord cannot insert a clause in my lease stating that I am waiving the rights granted me as a tenant by landlord-tenant laws, and if he did, such a clause would swiftly be found null-and-void.
Except, of course, if your landlord is a college in a dorm setting - in which case virtually none of the landlord/tenant protections are afforded in practice.
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Mar 15, 2009
Messages
1,226
Likes
161
Rob,
You quoted me (not cited) so I will reply. No, it would not be the best business practice for Glock viewed strictly in the light of cost/benefit. My post did not fault them for their position, rather just pointed it out should anyone imagine that they (Glock) might somehow ride to the rescue. I perfectly understand Glock's position as a business, and in fact give them credit for apparently continuing to provide testing samples to the EOPSS despite knowing that the AG would continue to override.

No, as a corporation Glock owes Massachusetts nothing. Those who want unfettered access to Glock's products will have to take up the hard work of trying to effect change here on the ground as you guys have, although most probably in the voting booth not the courtroom.

BTW I told you when we meet earlier this year how much I respected your efforts, that goes double when you are shouldering a lose with class.

Good night, good luck.


P.S.> For a bit of snark -- folks buy a VP9 its the Glock you really want. [laugh]
As far as I know they couldn't sell to LE in MA with out sending in those samples so why would you give them credit? One thing has nothing to do with the other.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Nov 8, 2005
Messages
25,022
Likes
3,553
I don't see the issue with sending in 3 samples. Let's say it's $500 a gun, so they are out $1,500, and probably less, since they are the maker. Then they can say they have provided samples and should be good to go.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Messages
37
Likes
91
Location
Canton, MA
So now its time for some enterprising gun shop/smith to start milling peep holes in the chamber, identical in dimension to their counterparts that meet the magic requirements.


This is Alex Flig. I'm the attorney who prosecuted this case. I've mostly kept out of this forum throughout the pendency of the court proceedings, but now certain practical issues allow (and almost compel) my comments in this thread.

You write that Gen3/4 Glock pistols' LIs should copy others. That is the crux of this case: Glock did. Gen3/4 Glock pistols' LIs are virtually identical in design to other pistols' extractor-based LIs. The AG has tacitly approved (not so fast--read below) those other pistols' extractor-based LI implementations but rejected Gen3/4 Glocks'.

Why? What is the difference between those other pistols' extractor-based LI implementations and Gen3/4 Glocks' extractor-based LI implementation that disqualifies the Glock LI implementation? That's the holy grail to decrypting the mystery of compliance--or is it?

Look in my briefs (especially the appellate brief) for quotes from the AG re other pistols' LI implementations, whatever they are, i.e. extractor-based LI, Ruger-style rocker on top of the slide, S&W's m*sshole, etc. She made it very, very clear that just because she did not disqualify those other LI implementations does not mean that they comply.

Let me state that on its own:

The AG has taken the express position that ANY pistol's LI implementation may be disqualified/rejected/designated as non-compliant with 940 CMR 16.05(3), even though the AG has not previously disqualified/rejected/designated that pistol's LI implementation as non-complaint.

So after 18 years of 940 CMR 16.05(3) being in place do you or anyone else (including the AG) know what complies? Do you have any idea? If so, I'm happy to entertain suggestions.



Now that (I hope) I have your and everyone else's attention, what, after the 1st Circuit's decision in this case:

  • is the procedure for re-qualifying a pistol as compliant?
  • who decides whether the new implementation complies?
  • how is that determination made?
  • what brave dealer is going to stick out his/her neck to find out if a particular modification to or replacement of Gen3/4 Glocks' LIs is compliant with the AG's "device which plainly indicates standard" that the 1st Circuit has reworded to "readily perceptible signal that a loaded gun is loaded"?

The 1st Circuit has plunged this otherwise simple case into a legal and factual abyss.

To all of you reading this post, I hope you will take the opportunity (if you have not already) to go to Comm2A's website and read through the briefs in this case. I know its long and not especially sexy reading but I think once you get through it you will understand just how bereft of substance are the AG's arguments, how the District Court's dismissal memorandum ignores established case law and even the most basic legal principles, and how utterly condescending and dismissive is the 1st Circuit's opinion.

I worked very hard on this, probably harder than on any other case I've handled. I cannot tell you even remotely how many months--forget hours, days or weeks--of time, energy, research and writing I put into this. I am the only attorney on the 2nd and 14th Amendment side of this case. Compare that to the sheer number of attorneys opposing my efforts on the other side of the v. on the briefs in the District Court and on the appeal. I put my heart 110% into this endeavor to protect our Constitutional rights.

Alas, in the hauntingly clear words of Chief Justice Roberts regarding the Supreme Court's decision re gay marriage last year:

“Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.”

The 1st Circuit's affirmation of the District Court's dismissal is a dark cloud, indeed, on our fundamental liberties.

Alex Flig
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
2,720
Likes
1,813
Location
Sudbury, MA Surrounded by snowflakes.
I worked very hard on this, probably harder than on any other case I've handled. I cannot tell you even remotely how many months--forget hours, days or weeks--of time, energy, research and writing I put into this. I am the only attorney on the 2nd and 14th Amendment side of this case. Compare that to the sheer number of attorneys opposing my efforts on the other side of the v. on the briefs in the District Court and on the appeal. I put my heart 110% into this endeavor to protect our Constitutional rights.

Alex,
In case there was any question, we appreciate all the efforts you put into this case and we do not pin the failure of this case on you in any way shape or form. Its the courts that let us down and failed us.
 

Individualist

NES Member
Rating - 100%
45   0   0
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
3,590
Likes
1,697
Thank you Alex for all of your hard work.

This is so depressing. I have lost what little remaining faith I had in our legal system.
 

TayNinh_66

NES Member
Rating - 100%
14   0   0
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
1,204
Likes
399
Location
East Boston
Alex,
In case there was any question, we appreciate all the efforts you put into this case and we do not pin the failure of this case on you in any way shape or form. Its the courts that let us down and failed us.
Agree. I've read all the briefs and appreciate the time, thought and skill that went into them. I can't imagine any gun cases that would get a positive reception in the 1st Circuit and I think the outcome was predetermined from the second it was filed.

Sincere thanks for your huge effort looking out for our constitutional rights.
 

mlaboss

NES Member
Rating - 100%
24   0   0
Joined
May 13, 2011
Messages
4,251
Likes
2,149
So basically, one day the AG could declare all loaded chamber indicators to be non-compliant with the requirements of 940 CMR 16.05(3), effectively shutting off all dealer sales of new handguns in this state, and there's not a damned thing we could do about it.
 
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Messages
8,418
Likes
3,508
Location
Milky Way
This is Alex Flig. I'm the attorney who prosecuted this case. I've mostly kept out of this forum throughout the pendency of the court proceedings, but now certain practical issues allow (and almost compel) my comments in this thread.
Alex Flig
Alex, unless I missed the post, I don't think that anyone places any blame on you. The AG's actions are clearly a sample of a tyrannical, out of control, government agency backed up by the Court. None of this makes sense to rational people, which confirms that you (we) were never allowed to play on a level field. The fact that the Court didn't allow expert testimony speaks volumes about this charade.

The AG is nothing more than another useless political HACK, just like her predecessors!
 
Top Bottom