Unsafe for Massachusetts consumers "they" say.
So let us exempt the police from these "unsafe" firearms so they can protect our citizens with them.
With the possibility of shooting themselves or others with malfunctioning/hazardous/unsafe firearms in the line of duty.
Better yet, let our towns supply said "unsafe" and "malfunctioning" firearms for official police use so they can be sued for providing "unsafe" firearms to the police while on the job....
Hello Mr Judge, the injured criminal I represent is suing the town of so and so of providing the unsafe firearm that may or not have shot my client on it's own.
When the state and local town freely admits it knew said firearm was dangerous enough to ban the sale of them and still equipped it's police force with them.
Even to the point of allowing it's police officers to personally own them.
Yeah, you can't make up the totally ridiculous infringement on the right's of our citizens to own the same said firearms.
But shove it in our face that towns are buying them for their police force and that the better than everyone else police are able to personally own them as well...
But don't you worry, you stupid fudd, you can still own shotguns. So there, we do support the 2A just as our founders intended!
From an OSHA stand point, this would be a lawyers wet dream in court if an accident ever occurred while on the job with a town provided weapon while on police duty.
Your Honor, the town supplied knowingly "unsafe" weapons that should have been put out of service due to there unsafe/malfunctioning nature..
![[rofl2]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/035.gif "ROFL2 [rofl2]")
In the brief, they defend the consumer protection regulations by saying the guns are unsafe yet later in the brief they say the plaintiffs are not blocked from buying the “unsafe” gun because they can buy them through a private sale. You’d almost respect them more if they would ban the “unsafe “ gun completely.
The historic laws they cite to justify the regulations are a joke too.
