dhuze
NES Member
She'd require you to have a loaded mouth indicator.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Glock Hearing - Can you attend?
- Thread starter Rob Boudrie
- Start date
She'd require you to have a loaded mouth indicator.
I am by far NOT an expert.
Glock's motion was denied but it also says "parties meet and confer to discuss possible agreement on the scope of discovery" which seems to indicate that the judge would like to see a more reasonable limit on the discovery. My experience is that when a judge says you should should discuss an agreement it means he doesn't like what he is seeing, even if it is within the law, and you dam well better come up with something more reasonable.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,562
- Likes
- 33,629
It's the equivalent of "counsel - go settle it; the court does not wish to be bothered writing a decision".
Which basically means we'll be back in court again given the inflexible nature of both parties.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,562
- Likes
- 33,629
I hope NES will be a well represented at the next hearing as they were at the last one.
I posted this story this morning and it got locked. Why would Glock even answer her harassing request when they don't even sell their firearms in this corrupt State?
*******
A judge is allowing Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey to continue her investigation into the gun manufacturer Glock.
Suffolk County Superior Court Judge Edward Leibensperger wrote that Healey has "good and sufficient grounds" to request documents from Glock "based on safety and other concerns about Glock pistols owned throughout the commonwealth."
Healey, a Democrat, has often butted heads with the gun industry, most notably in an effort this summer to reinterpret Massachusetts' assault weapons ban to include additional types of guns.
http://www.masslive.com/politics/in...ley_con.html#incart_river_home#incart_m-rpt-2
*******
A judge is allowing Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey to continue her investigation into the gun manufacturer Glock.
Suffolk County Superior Court Judge Edward Leibensperger wrote that Healey has "good and sufficient grounds" to request documents from Glock "based on safety and other concerns about Glock pistols owned throughout the commonwealth."
Healey, a Democrat, has often butted heads with the gun industry, most notably in an effort this summer to reinterpret Massachusetts' assault weapons ban to include additional types of guns.
http://www.masslive.com/politics/in...ley_con.html#incart_river_home#incart_m-rpt-2
********
the fix is in, don't you think Maura knows this? Do you think she would waste her cred if she didn't know this case was a slam dunk? I am confused on her end game thou. Since Glocks can't be sold in this corrupt State per order of her predecessor what's her point? More publicity for her new job?
Her end game? Well she recently (falsely) criminalized possession of one of the most popular rifles, and now she'll be able to show that ownership of a banned handgun (banned for sale by dealers) is fairly wide spread. And it's a known to be unsafe gun. So obviously she'll need to re-interpret the regulation banning sale by dealers to actually mean, in fact have meant all along, to be a ban on sale, transfer, and possession by anyone... except LEO.
But this isn't really her end game, just her next step. Her end game is confiscation. Most likely this will happen on a Fed level.
Her actions need to be stopped here in MA before they infect the rest of the country. Support NSSF, GOAL, and Comm2a. I may not always agree with everything they do (I'm not a blind fanatic), but they are our best hope right now and without our support they can't do anything.
DarthRevan
NES Member
How do you not see the end game? Precident to both demand confiscation/ban private sale of Glocks for the children, and to have the ammo to persecute FFLs who have sold them regardless of the fact that most Glocks don't come into MA direct from Glock.
******
I see the long term end game which to radicals like her is ban/confiscation. Her vendetta against Glock was started by Scotty but in this State she's preaching to the choir. Is this cred for her new job in DC?
Again, why would Glock even respond to her ridiculous claim since they don't sell their product in this State? They give her request credence by responding. She didn't respond to the Texas judges request for her records on the Exxon harassment suit. Anyone with any mechanical knowledge sees that Glocks are mechanically safe.
amm5061
NES Member
Time for them to pull a Ronnie Barrett and tell her to go **** herself and no more guns to MA LEOs.
DarthRevan
NES Member
They had stopped for a while when this mess started. I don't know if that's still the case.
dhuze
NES Member
Her end game is a position on Hillary's cabinet making bullshit laws throughout the country banning firearms completely and destroying the U.S. Constitution.
JDL
NES Member
The next step is to reinterpret what is a legal Glock sale in MA. If all the Glocks are unsafe as stated by the AG's Consumer Safety Regulations and were banned to sell as new then it would only follow that all sales of Glock pistols would also be a sale of an unsafe firearm. She can do what she did with the AWB in this state. Stop all sales of Glock from FFLs new or used and stop all transfers just like she did with the AWB only out of state sales to a FFL could be done. This does not take away your right to sell your property it just doesn't allow you to sell it in MA. She would make all ownership of Glocks no longer legal to own, however she would reserves the the right to not prosecute at this time just like she did with the AWB. No confiscation or turn in would be necessary because this would become cradle to grave. Once the owner passed on the firearm could not be transferred so it would have to be sold out of state or turned in at that time. In theory all Glocks would be eliminated in MA within a generation.
She doesn't even need to waste resources on confiscation. Maura banked on gun owners in this state to fall in line with her guidance under the guise of if you dont youre breaking the law. And it worked. She stopped new sales and is banking on gun owners not being able to pass down these firearms to their kids and the next generation. They are playing the long game and using our lawful nature against us.
Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
Glock cannot simply ignore the AG's CID, especially after they filed a case in Massachusetts to quash it. The AG can take legal action against Glock for not complying and, under Article IV Section 1 of the US Constitution, a Georgia court would be required to enforce it.
Glock may have been wise to do what Exxon has done by filing it's motion in federal court down in Georgia. I'm not sure that the Glock situation would have allowed that as it did for Exxon.
Glock may have been wise to do what Exxon has done by filing it's motion in federal court down in Georgia. I'm not sure that the Glock situation would have allowed that as it did for Exxon.
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
Think about that for a while.
What's Maura's end game? Finding a loophole in PLACCA(?)
The most important question of the Glock hearing IMO:
Judge: "If a consumer has a Glock, claims it as defective, can they sue Glock in MA?"
Glock: “Absolutely, breach of warranty can be sued anywhere”
Judge: "If consumers can bring product liability suits, why can’t the AGO investigate?"
Death by a thousand cuts all over again.
The most important question of the Glock hearing IMO:
Judge: "If a consumer has a Glock, claims it as defective, can they sue Glock in MA?"
Glock: “Absolutely, breach of warranty can be sued anywhere”
Judge: "If consumers can bring product liability suits, why can’t the AGO investigate?"
Death by a thousand cuts all over again.
snax
NES Member
Probably be more cost effective for the state, and better for all handgun owners (but not cost effective for them) is to mandate life fire training for all levels of firearm ownership, and maybe mandate that each manufacturer, instead of spending all sorts of money to be on "the list", produce a detailed video that can be accessible on youtube, their website, or send out a dvd on the safe operation, take down, cleaning and reassembly on each specific firearm they sell in MA. Done.
Well, exactly. That's the reason we have PLACCA in the first place. The gun control folks wanted to sue gun manufacturers out of business. They brought PLACCA on themselves and now cry crocodile tears because gun makers are immune from certain types of suits.
Chris
NES Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2005
- Messages
- 13,400
- Likes
- 8,239
What is truly sick is that the media continues to lie about the extent of the law. The law does not "protect" anyone. All it does is provide a short circuit to specific liability suits when there exists no culpable actions on the part of the manufacturer, distributor, or dealer. In other words, the party bringing suit must be able to show a failure to comply with the existing legal process to go forward with suits associated with the criminal misuse of firearms. The left hates this because it prevents them from creating long expensive cases that they know have no standing.
The example I use when I explain this is this:
You own a store that sells pretty decorations. One of your popular sellers is a metal pointed star that when hung in a window breaks sunlight into color patterns. The arms of the star are 4" long fine points.
One day, a violent felon comes into your store and purchases one of these stars legally and without any action that seems different than any other customer you've ever had.
That evening, the customer drives the 4" spike of the star into his ex-girlfriend's eye killing her instantly.
The family of the dead girl sues you, your company, the distributor, and the artist and his company that makes the popular decoration.
I ask you - is this fair?
I usually get a "no, it isn't my fault".
Correct, and ultimately the suit will be dismissed. Although it might be an expensive process of fighting the suit in your legal fees.
OK, now instead of just one violent criminal, you have a large nationwide gang of criminals who decide to start using these decorations to assassinate their enemies. Thousands of people are dying. Anti-star groups are suing all over the country. The poor artist has to defend himself in hundreds of courts.
Of course, not one of these cases ever wins. People are smart enough to know that you can't blame an honest person for the actions of a criminal. But alas, the cost to defend everywhere is enough to put everyone involved out of business. Should that kind of illegitimate destruction of people's lives be allowed?
Again, I usually get a no.
Well, that is exactly what is happening when it comes to guns used in crime. People sue the manufacturers, wholesalers, and dealers who have not done anything illegal. The law simply allows such suits to be dismissed. Now, if some evidence exists to show that the companies involved DID violate some law, rule, or process which would knowingly allow a firearm to reach a criminal, there is no protection. The law simply requires that such a situation exists and people who dislike a product can not simply cause a flood of litigation as a means to bankrupt the company.
dhuze
NES Member
Logic has no place in this discussion.
