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