What has bothered me from the beginning is arguing her interpretation instead of arguing her claimed authority under MA Ch 93A Sec 2.
It seems to me that her authority under this portion of the law as it relates to firearms is very specific and restricted. From what I read it seems that it's intent and that of the underlying Fed 15 USC 45(1)(a) is to protect consumers against unethical methods of business. Nowhere does it say the AG can reclassify, create additional tests, reinterpret, or otherwise deny sales of certain commonly sold firearms and parts under this authority.
I would love to hear a legal opinion on this. In private is fine if doing so publicly is unwise.
Chapter 93A Section 2
Section 2. (a) Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.
(b) It is the intent of the legislature that in construing paragraph (a) of this section in actions brought under sections four, nine and eleven, the courts will be guided by the interpretations given by the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Courts to section 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1)), as from time to time amended.
(c) The attorney general may make rules and regulations interpreting the provisions of subsection 2(a) of this chapter. Such rules and regulations shall not be inconsistent with the rules, regulations and decisions of the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Courts interpreting the provisions of 15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1) (The Federal Trade Commission Act), as from time to time amended.