Lawyers - I want to sue the State of Massachusetts

wheelgun

NES Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2006
Messages
470
Likes
61
Location
Massachusetts
Feedback: 4 / 0 / 0
I own a car. I don't HAVE to have a car, but I chose to purchase one. I couldn't buy just any car, it had to be one whose design has been tested and meets safety standards set by the federal government. My car is inspected every year by the State of Massachusetts to ensure it continues to meet those standards, in an effort to protect public safety.

I own firearms. I don't HAVE to have firearms, but I chose to purchase them. I couldn't buy just any firearms, I'm only allowed to buy those which meet safety standards defined by the State of Massachusetts. In addition, they have to meet EXTRA stringent safety requirements defined by the Attorney General, the specifics of which are so critical they're not even allowed to be published for the general public to see.

Like many firearm owners, I find the State approved firearms I purchased are damaging my health. Over the years I've lost some hearing due to the loud report from both handguns and rifles. I was fully aware of this as it was happening, but I had no recourse. I wear hearing protection, but it has limitations and is really a bandaid, intended to divert attention from the source of the problem. Unlike 80% of the states in the country, Massachusetts bans the device that would have prevented my hearing loss - the simple suppressor, analogous to a muffler on a car.

This is hard to fathom, given the State's extreme concern for consumer safety in the operation of every other product, as manifested in the thousands of regulations that exist today. Exhaust sound from cars, motorcycles, commericial equipment, etc. must all meet state safety standards.

The State is jeopardizing and damaging citizen's hearing due to the ban of the use of supressors. Effectively the State of Massachusetts is prohibiting the use of a safety device that is approved in 80% of the country.

We should be able to successfully sue the State on this basis. To ban a device that affords consumers an extra level of safety is unheard of elsewhere in the retail or commercial market. Imagine if Massachusetts ruled tomorrow that seatbelts were illegal, or that safety goggles were illegal.

I want to sue the State of Massachusetts on these grounds. To quote my cousin Vinny,

"Does the prosecution's case hold water?" [popcorn] [wink] [smile]
 
Last edited:
that's a tough hoe to row. silencers are regulated by the Fed under the National Firearms Act

thus your beef is really intertwined with the federal government of the United States of America

but in America, if you have enough MONEY anything is possible

No, that's not the issue... I'm not talking about federal law. I'm willing to pay for and jump through the necessary hoops for a tax stamp. But MGL prohibits supressors completely, above and beyond the NFA law. You can't possess one even WITH a tax stamp in this state.
 
Last edited:
I was in a hunter safety class years ago. There was a guy in there who claimed he was going to sue a town that prohibited hunting. His basis was that a deer jumped into his car and ruined it, and that the state owned the deer. Since you had to buy a stamp from the state to shoot the deer, the state has to own the deer. By prohibiting hunting, the state/town was negligent in keeping their herd in check and manageable.

I've yet to see this case in the papers. Best of luck to you on your lawsuit.
 
The suppressor ban is so shotspotters have stuff to hear. (And for the children)

If you don't hear your shots, you can't have any shotspotters. How can you have any shotspotters, if you don't hear your shots?

(Said in the voice + cadence of Pink Floyd's "If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding....")
 
I'll happily contribute an amicus brief if you get an attorney competent enough to take lead on the case and file for you.
 
I think you'll get laughed out of court if you actually use the phrase 'safety device' to describe a suppressor.
 
We should be able to successfully sue the State on this basis. To ban a device that affords consumers an extra level of safety is unheard of"Does the prosecution's case hold water?" [popcorn] [wink] [smile]

Funny pun.

Few are listening, maybe because they are deaf. Those that are, are trying to ban the car instead of putting a muffler on it.


As an aside, isn't it great that you have to pay the state $35 to get your brand new car with 5 miles on it, that has been tested by the manufacturer and road tested by the dealer, tested by the state to make sure the horn works, the tires have enough tread on them, the lights work, and the ball joints are not worn out? I'm sure they are thinking of ways to get $5 per gun and have them inspected and stickered every year.
 
The suppressor ban is so shotspotters have stuff to hear. (And for the children)

If you don't hear your shots, you can't have any shotspotters. How can you have any shotspotters, if you don't hear your shots?

(Said in the voice + cadence of Pink Floyd's "If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding....")
That's the exact voice I read that sentence in to begin with [rofl]


OP: I buy that argument, but I'm admittedly biased or else I wouldn't be on this site [wink] I think it's a legitimate argument, especially for home defense firearms. Anyone would be hard pressed to seriously suggest that a home owner wear hearing protection and ensure that their household members wear the same before reacting to a life-threatening home intruder. Heck, they probably don't even make ear pro for babies, so really suppressors are for the children.
 
I think you'll get laughed out of court if you actually use the phrase 'safety device' to describe a suppressor.

they were designed to reduce the nuisance of noise to neighbors when hunting small game on your property - back when america was america.
 
A criminal would more likely win the case against you for his constant ear ringing after you shot him for trying to kill you.
 
I own a car. I don't HAVE to have a car, but I chose to purchase one. I couldn't buy just any car, it had to be one whose design has been tested and meets safety standards set by the federal government. My car is inspected every year by the State of Massachusetts to ensure it continues to meet those standards, in an effort to protect public safety.

I own firearms. I don't HAVE to have firearms, but I chose to purchase them. I couldn't buy just any firearms, I'm only allowed to buy those which meet safety standards defined by the State of Massachusetts. In addition, they have to meet EXTRA stringent safety requirements defined by the Attorney General, the specifics of which are so critical they're not even allowed to be published for the general public to see.

Like many firearm owners, I find the State approved firearms I purchased are damaging my health. Over the years I've lost some hearing due to the loud report from both handguns and rifles. I was fully aware of this as it was happening, but I had no recourse. I wear hearing protection, but it has limitations and is really a bandaid, intended to divert attention from the source of the problem. Unlike 80% of the states in the country, Massachusetts bans the device that would have prevented my hearing loss - the simple suppressor, analogous to a muffler on a car.

This is hard to fathom, given the State's extreme concern for consumer safety in the operation of every other product, as manifested in the thousands of regulations that exist today. Exhaust sound from cars, motorcycles, commericial equipment, etc. must all meet state safety standards.

The State is jeopardizing and damaging citizen's hearing due to the ban of the use of supressors. Effectively the State of Massachusetts is prohibiting the use of a safety device that is approved in 80% of the country.

We should be able to successfully sue the State on this basis. To ban a device that affords consumers an extra level of safety is unheard of elsewhere in the retail or commercial market. Imagine if Massachusetts ruled tomorrow that seatbelts were illegal, or that safety goggles were illegal.

I want to sue the State of Massachusetts on these grounds. To quote my cousin Vinny,

"Does the prosecution's case hold water?" [popcorn] [wink] [smile]

They'll just use your case to BAN MORE GUNS...[frown]
 
I think you'll get laughed out of court if you actually use the phrase 'safety device' to describe a suppressor.

You're kidding right? That is how they are marketed in the rest of the world. Amazingly in anti-gun Europe, silencers are not difficult to get. Its considered to be polite to use one.

Silencers were effectively banned in the 1930s because the GOVERNMENT didn't want people poaching game. Remember that in 1934 a $200 stamp was like a $3500 stamp in todays dollars.

- - - Updated - - -

Can't wait to see the lawyer you dredge up who is willing to take this case.

This is not good for the OP's chances. Mr. Dragger is just a little bit knowledgeable when it comes to this stuff.
 
I own a car. I don't HAVE to have a car, but I chose to purchase one. I couldn't buy just any car, it had to be one whose design has been tested and meets safety standards set by the federal government. My car is inspected every year by the State of Massachusetts to ensure it continues to meet those standards, in an effort to protect public safety.

I own firearms. I don't HAVE to have firearms, but I chose to purchase them. I couldn't buy just any firearms, I'm only allowed to buy those which meet safety standards defined by the State of Massachusetts. In addition, they have to meet EXTRA stringent safety requirements defined by the Attorney General, the specifics of which are so critical they're not even allowed to be published for the general public to see.

Like many firearm owners, I find the State approved firearms I purchased are damaging my health. Over the years I've lost some hearing due to the loud report from both handguns and rifles. I was fully aware of this as it was happening, but I had no recourse. I wear hearing protection, but it has limitations and is really a bandaid, intended to divert attention from the source of the problem. Unlike 80% of the states in the country, Massachusetts bans the device that would have prevented my hearing loss - the simple suppressor, analogous to a muffler on a car.

This is hard to fathom, given the State's extreme concern for consumer safety in the operation of every other product, as manifested in the thousands of regulations that exist today. Exhaust sound from cars, motorcycles, commericial equipment, etc. must all meet state safety standards.

The State is jeopardizing and damaging citizen's hearing due to the ban of the use of supressors. Effectively the State of Massachusetts is prohibiting the use of a safety device that is approved in 80% of the country.

We should be able to successfully sue the State on this basis. To ban a device that affords consumers an extra level of safety is unheard of elsewhere in the retail or commercial market. Imagine if Massachusetts ruled tomorrow that seatbelts were illegal, or that safety goggles were illegal.

I want to sue the State of Massachusetts on these grounds. To quote my cousin Vinny,

"Does the prosecution's case hold water?" [popcorn] [wink] [smile]

What is your budget for this project?
 
Getting rid of the ban suppressors would not be an easy case to win. You absolutely would not win in state court. And I don't see it as a being ripe in federal court.

Please don't try to do this on your own -- you will only lose and create a bad precedent.
 
Getting rid of the ban suppressors would not be an easy case to win. You absolutely would not win in state court. And I don't see it as a being ripe in federal court.

Please don't try to do this on your own -- you will only lose and create a bad precedent.

Excellent point!
 
Getting rid of the ban suppressors would not be an easy case to win. You absolutely would not win in state court. And I don't see it as a being ripe in federal court.

Why do you say it isn't ripe? Damage to peoples' ears has already occurred and is likely to continue happening so long as people shoot loud firearms. There's no speculation.
 
Why do you say it isn't ripe? Damage to peoples' ears has already occurred and is likely to continue happening so long as people shoot loud firearms. There's no speculation.

Look at some of the 2A lawsuits that have been lost by Comm2A and Calguns.

- - - Updated - - -

This is exactly what happened in Draper V Coakley, although it was "I am inclined to grant the motion to dismiss, but will hear arguments first".

And then the judge dismissed the case.
 
Back
Top Bottom