Out of State purchase of ammo

[BillO]

I recently reordered some plated bullets from Rainier online, and got this response:

Due to State Restrictions we cannot send components (bullets) to MA. Do you still want the rest of the order?

I know there's restrictions on live ammo, powder, and primers, but didn't think bullets weren't allowed. Anyone know where I can view these "restrictions"?

 

[Len-2A Training]

There are NO legal restrictions on ordering this stuff.

It is the AG's "opinion" that no MA Subject can buy stuff from out of state and he's threatened those that were willing to sell to M (per interstate commerce laws, which obviously do not hold for MA only the other 49 states).

Talk with the AG to get the restrictions! Bet he won't tell you anything!

Oh, when he becomes Gov next year, it'll only get worse . . . especially with his protégé, Martha Coakley as the next AG!

 

[JonJ]

Aren't componants considered "ammunition" in this glorious Meca of Liberty? Therefore the out of state seller must have an unobtainable permit to sell?

 

[C-pher]

Aren't componants considered "ammunition" in this glorious Meca of Liberty? Therefore the out of state seller must have an unobtainable permit to sell?

That's what I thoguht. I thought that was one of the things on the Sportsman Reform that GOAL is trying to push though...

 

[Len-2A Training]

Aren't componants considered "ammunition" in this glorious Meca of Liberty? Therefore the out of state seller must have an unobtainable permit to sell?

True about all components being considered "ammunition" in MA. So that effects only the right to possess, not the right to order (and the solution to that is a copy of LTC to merchant, adult signature at delivery . . . even delivery only to person who placed the order if needed to guarantee LTC holder and receiver are one and the same). But this isn't even good enough for Herr Dictator Reilly.

The permit issue is true if you accept that the UCC only applies in 49 states and is null and void in MA!

UCC = Uniform Commercial Code - taught in first college law courses on commercial law as the basis on which all non-face-to-face interstate commerce operates on. Basic premise is that every UCC sale takes place at the location of the merchant and thus all laws of the state of the merchant applies. [Take a look at credit card T&Cs, catalogs for anything, etc. This IS enforceable in the judicial system and accepted universally in all 50 states! ONLY MA doesn't accept this premise of law . . . but ONLY wrt firearms/ammo/components/mags/etc. all other transactions into MA are under UCC!]

The above is why the AG is full of shit, but nobody big enough, with enough $$ to play this out in court will challenge Reilly!

 

[Len-2A Training]

C-pher is correct. GOAL is pushing that components NOT be considered "ammunition". And that is why it is not likely to pass!

Reilly will still not change his stand, as it isn't based in law anyway. It is solely based on his personal hatred for anything connected with firearms. The legislature does NOT control the AG, and although the AG is only supposed to defend or prosecute LAW, not make it . . . it has now become SOP for AGs to "create law" all on their own with no input from anyone except their staff.

 

[RKG]

JonJ is on track:

1. Ammunition is defined to include some components, including bullets.
2. Ammunition may be sold in Massachusetts only by a person licensed to sell ammunition.
3. Ammunition may be sold in Massachusetts only to one who has a license for the class of firearm for which the ammunition is suitable.

All the foregoing is by statute.

If you accept the statutes as written (which, unless and until they are changed, you pretty much have to), then mail order sales tend to violate both Point 2 and Point 3. That, as I understand it, was the substance of the Attorney General's ruling, and on the one hand, it is pretty hard to argue that he has misinterpreted the statutes.

Now this is all pretty dumb, since there is no legal impediment -- either federal, Massachusetts or Rhode Island -- to a Massachusetts resident toodling up to New Hampshire and buying either loaded ammunition or components, and (assuming he has an FID or LTC) bringing them home.

And, at the same time, you could accomplish all of the Massachusetts statutory objectives and still facilitate mail order sales, but just providing a way for mail order houses to register with the Commonwealth and take signed facsimiles of FIDs and LTCs, just the way in the old days they did with signed copies of FFLs. Indeed, someone ought to suggest this as a statututory amendment to someone with the ability to get it considered by the General Court.

I know Tom Reilly, personally and for a number of years. In general, he's about as apolitical a fellow who ever achieved elected office. He may or may not be personally anti-gun (we've actually never discussed the subject), but his ruling on this point -- given the statutes that he is obliged to recognize and enforce -- is hardly proof of anti-gun animus. I think some of the criticism he's received on this point is unfair.

Postscript:

Not so good a grade on the UCC:

Article Two of the Uniform Commercial Code does not purport to define "where" a sale takes place for any purpose other than transfer of title and shifting of the risk of loss. And it does not always place the point of sale at the seller; examine the difference between "shipment" sales and "delivery" sales. Finally, the Uniform Commercial Code has never been interpreted to address, much less resolve, the ability of states to regulate sales, shipments or delivery of specific types of articles into their state.

Postscript No. 2: On "Creating Law":

In theory, the drawing of legal lines (what is good, what is bad, what is OK and what is not) is the "legislative function." Under both the United States and Massachusetts constitutions, the legislative function is lodged exclusively with the legislature (the United States Congress and the Great and General Court, respectively), and may not be exercised by the executive.

This was the law until Franklin D. Roosevelt became the President of the United States. Prior to that time, Congress, in an effort frankly to avoid having to make political legislative decisions, had created some "administrative agencies" and conferred on those agencies the power to "fill in the specifics" in some statutory schemes by promulgating "regulations." Where the regulations were merely details implementing Congressionally-enacted policies, the Courts upheld this power, but where the regulations amounted to the agencies making the policy, the Courts held them unconstitutional as violations of the "delegation doctrine." The delegation doctrine holds that the legislative power cannot be delegated by the legislature to anyone, including the executive.

Today, both federally and in Massachusetts, the delegation doctrine is dead.

Were it otherwise, the power granted to the Attorney General to promulgate regulations defining "unfair acts and practices" within the meaning of Section 2 of G.L. ch. 93A would be Candidate No. 1 for a holding of "unconstitutional" under the "delegation doctrine." Since 1972 or whenever this statute was written, a number of AGs have used this power to "make law" in a number of fields and a number of outrageous ways. Using the ch. 93A power to define what is a "safe" firearm is but one example. It is the one the gets under our collective skin the most, perhaps, but in the larger picture, it is hardly the most outrageous.

Besides appearing to be virulently anti-gun, some of these regulations are just technically bad and in some cases dangerous. A "loaded chamber indicator," for instance, just provides a way for gun handlers to violate the rule that requires you to inspect the chamber. I've often wondered why Tom let these reg's go: whether they mean that he himself really is out to lunch on this issue or simply allowed some moron in his office to have a field day. Some day I may find out.

 

[Adam_MA]

I've often wondered why Tom let these reg's go: whether they mean that he himself really is out to lunch on this issue or simply allowed some moron in his office to have a field day. Some day I may find out.

When you do, please oh please post the answers here. I would LOVE to see the "logic path" that lead to this.

Adam

 

[Scrivener]

I have received both components and loaded ammunition via mail; most recently the beginning of the month. I'm NOT posting the source here, however.

I want to KEEP getting my supplies!

 

[Adam_MA]

I have received both components and loaded ammunition via mail; most recently the beginning of the month. I'm NOT posting the source here, however.

I want to KEEP getting my supplies!

GOOD PLAN!
I too have a source that will ship to MA. When I called and asked I was answered with "Why the hell wouldn't we ship to MA. We're not afraid of your communist state government"

Adam

 

[KMaurer]

Okay, since we've got attorneys joining in this little discussion, maybe one of them could explain this to me. After the Supreme Court decided Granholm v. Heald, GOAL posted on their web site that they had decided that it wouldn't help with the ammunition sales problems that the AG has been causing with his insistence that interstate purchases of ammunition, unlike other goods, take place here rather than at the sellers' locations.

I was rather surprised by this opinion, since my read of the cases was that it seemed directly on point. The court ruled that certain regulations that Michigan applied to wine sales, and similar regulations by several other states, unconstitutionally interfered with interstate commerce because their "differential treatment explicitly discriminates against interstate commerce by limiting the emerging and significant direct-sale business." Now I never went to law school (though I did somehow manage to take a couple of law school courses as an undergraduate, plus a couple more as part of my doctoral program), but doesn't the requirement that ammunition sellers obtain licenses from their local police do exactly the same thing? If so, then why wouldn't it be an equally unconstitutional interference? Seems to me that if some out-of-state dealer with balls and bucks were to stand up to Reilly, he get his head handed to him in federal court.

I don't know Reilly, just passed him in the halls a few time, so I can't really comment on his personal attitudes. However, based on the regulations and the office documents GOAL obtained from his office under FOIA, I think that one can make an extremely strong case for one of two things: either (1) he holds a serious bias against guns and gun owners which manifests itself in his performance of his official duties, or (2) he has absolutely no control over the way his senior staff perform their duties for which he is untimately responsible. I know which of the two I suspect to be more likely.

Ken

 

[RKG]

I haven't read Granholm since it came out (beginning of the summer as I recall), but if I recall correctly, it address direct sales by wineries to consumer customers, and the state law (Michigan or someplace thataway) allowed in-state wineries to make such sales but denied out-of-state wineries the right to make the identical sales. If I recall correctly, the crux of the holding was that you had two classes of sellers, otherwise identically situated but for their in-state or out-of-state location, that were treated differently (with the out-of-staters burdened). On its face, that doesn't seem to apply directly here, since neither in-state people nor out-of-state people can make mail-order sales of ammunition.

(I think I also recall that, in Granholm, part of the problem was that in-state wineries (who would correlate to the manufacturers of components) were able to avoid the economic costs of selling through wholesalers and retailers, while out-of-state "manufacturers" had to bear these costs and, therefore, could not compete in price for the consumer sales. If this economic discrimination was necessary to the outcome -- and while I recall the discussion, I don't recall whether it was a component of the holding -- it would not be directly applicable here, because (a) the manufacturers of components are not claiming the right to make direct sales and (b) the out-of-staters who might be complaining are retailers at the same level of integration as in-state retailers.)

The crux of the problem seems to be ch. 140, section 129C, which provides, in part: "No person shall sell . . . ammunition other than . . . to a person who displays his firearm identification card, or license to carry a pistol or revolver."

The verb "display" could be read (and apparently has been read) to impose a "face-to-face" requirement on ammunition sales. The question, I suppose, is whether imposing a "face-to-face" requirement violates the negative implications of the Commerce Clause because, as a practical matter, face-to-face transactions with distant sellers are infeasible. (Consider, though, that as a practical matter the face-to-face requirement makes it just as impractical for me to buy components from a seller in Pittsfield as it does for one in Pennsylvania and far more so than from one in Derry, New Hampshire.) I don't, off the top of my head, have a reasoned answer to this question, but I'm doubtful that Granholm provides direct authority, since in that case in-state sellers could sell by mail and were not limited to face-to-face sales.

As I said earlier, the whole thing seems a bit silly. If the point is to limit sales of ammunition, by anyone, to Massachusetts people who hold FIDs or LTCs, then that purpose can be fully accomplished in the same practical way that it used to be regarding the mail order sales of firearms themselves, namely the signed photocopy of the FFL. But unless it were prepared to hold the Massachusetts statute unconstitutional, a court would not overturn it just because there is a better way to accomplish its goals.

 

[RKG]

I haven't read Granholm since it came out (beginning of the summer as I recall), but if I recall correctly, it address direct sales by wineries to consumer customers, and the state law (Michigan or someplace thataway) allowed in-state wineries to make such sales but denied out-of-state wineries the right to make the identical sales. If I recall correctly, the crux of the holding was that you had two classes of sellers, otherwise identically situated but for their in-state or out-of-state location, that were treated differently (with the out-of-staters burdened). On its face, that doesn't seem to apply directly here, since neither in-state people nor out-of-state people can make mail-order sales of ammunition.

(I think I also recall that, in Granholm, part of the problem was that in-state wineries (who would correlate to the manufacturers of components) were able to avoid the economic costs of selling through wholesalers and retailers, while out-of-state "manufacturers" had to bear these costs and, therefore, could not compete in price for the consumer sales. If this economic discrimination was necessary to the outcome -- and while I recall the discussion, I don't recall whether it was a component of the holding -- it would not be directly applicable here, because (a) the manufacturers of components are not claiming the right to make direct sales and (b) the out-of-staters who might be complaining are retailers at the same level of integration as in-state retailers.)

The crux of the problem seems to be ch. 140, section 129C, which provides, in part: "No person shall sell . . . ammunition other than . . . to a person who displays his firearm identification card, or license to carry a pistol or revolver."

The verb "display" could be read (and apparently has been read) to impose a "face-to-face" requirement on ammunition sales. The question, I suppose, is whether imposing a "face-to-face" requirement violates the negative implications of the Commerce Clause because, as a practical matter, face-to-face transactions with distant sellers are infeasible. (Consider, though, that as a practical matter the face-to-face requirement makes it just as impractical for me to buy components from a seller in Pittsfield as it does for one in Pennsylvania and far more so than from one in Derry, New Hampshire.) I don't, off the top of my head, have a reasoned answer to this question, but I'm doubtful that Granholm provides direct authority, since in that case in-state sellers could sell by mail and were not limited to face-to-face sales.

As I said earlier, the whole thing seems a bit silly. If the point is to limit sales of ammunition, by anyone, to Massachusetts people who hold FIDs or LTCs, then that purpose can be fully accomplished in the same practical way that it used to be regarding the mail order sales of firearms themselves, namely the signed photocopy of the FFL. But unless it were prepared to hold the Massachusetts statute unconstitutional, a court would not overturn it just because there is a better way to accomplish its goals.

 

[RKG]

I haven't read Granholm since it came out (beginning of the summer as I recall), but if I recall correctly, it address direct sales by wineries to consumer customers, and the state law (Michigan or someplace thataway) allowed in-state wineries to make such sales but denied out-of-state wineries the right to make the identical sales. If I recall correctly, the crux of the holding was that you had two classes of sellers, otherwise identically situated but for their in-state or out-of-state location, that were treated differently (with the out-of-staters burdened). On its face, that doesn't seem to apply directly here, since neither in-state people nor out-of-state people can make mail-order sales of ammunition.

(I think I also recall that, in Granholm, part of the problem was that in-state wineries (who would correlate to the manufacturers of components) were able to avoid the economic costs of selling through wholesalers and retailers, while out-of-state "manufacturers" had to bear these costs and, therefore, could not compete in price for the consumer sales. If this economic discrimination was necessary to the outcome -- and while I recall the discussion, I don't recall whether it was a component of the holding -- it would not be directly applicable here, because (a) the manufacturers of components are not claiming the right to make direct sales and (b) the out-of-staters who might be complaining are retailers at the same level of integration as in-state retailers.)

The crux of the problem seems to be ch. 140, section 129C, which provides, in part: "No person shall sell . . . ammunition other than . . . to a person who displays his firearm identification card, or license to carry a pistol or revolver."

The verb "display" could be read (and apparently has been read) to impose a "face-to-face" requirement on ammunition sales. The question, I suppose, is whether imposing a "face-to-face" requirement violates the negative implications of the Commerce Clause because, as a practical matter, face-to-face transactions with distant sellers are infeasible. (Consider, though, that as a practical matter the face-to-face requirement makes it just as impractical for me to buy components from a seller in Pittsfield as it does for one in Pennsylvania and far more so than from one in Derry, New Hampshire.) I don't, off the top of my head, have a reasoned answer to this question, but I'm doubtful that Granholm provides direct authority, since in that case in-state sellers could sell by mail and were not limited to face-to-face sales.

As I said earlier, the whole thing seems a bit silly. If the point is to limit sales of ammunition, by anyone, to Massachusetts people who hold FIDs or LTCs, then that purpose can be fully accomplished in the same practical way that it used to be regarding the mail order sales of firearms themselves, namely the signed photocopy of the FFL. But unless it were prepared to hold the Massachusetts statute unconstitutional, a court would not overturn it just because there is a better way to accomplish its goals.

 

[Len-2A Training]

RKG,

Counselor, I'll have to concede legal points to you. I'm not an attorney, although I did once consider becoming a patent attorney when the late DEC was trying to convert some engineers into patent attorneys. The restrictions in the DEC program made it disadvantageous to me, so I took a "pass".

My biggest fear of Reilly catching wind of our bitching or bragging about what we bought/how we got it is that he'll use that info to slam all doors shut on our getting supplies to keep shooting. I'm convinced that he can and would do that! You may think that your buddy is pure as the driven snow and won't screw us, but I contend that he already has done that many times over.

- I was told by GOAL that Reilly actually opined that ALL ammo shipments into MA were "illegal", even to dealers/distributors! My response was that the first time a PD has to send on-duty officers out-of-state to pickup ammo for qualification will be the end of Reilly's political career. GOAL admitted that he chose to "selectively enforce" his opinion on direct shipments to consumers only as we have no clout to kill his career. Now maybe GOAL has it wrong (but I personally doubt it), but this is what I recall being told during a phone conversation I had some time ago (when the mail-order sales became a public issue).

Do you remember that at one time the MSP were stopping MA tagged cars at the NH border to check for "illegal purchases" of liquor in NH? MSP were sitting in NH state liquor store parking lots radioing MA tag numbers to their buddies on the MA side of the line so that they stopped the "right cars", searched them and <I don't recall if they confiscated or fined>, all without search warrants!

NH SP actually arrested one or more MA State Troopers at the liquor store parking lots. Big political stink between governors, major media play, etc. This was long before Harshbarger or Reilly, but it does set the tenor of what an AG will do if they want to!

When you said that they could still allow mail-order sales and meet the statutory objectives, you are confirming what I said earlier.

Personally I do NOT like politicians at all, but I do judge each person as an individual. So, that said I know a number of politicians (some I knew before they ran for political office) and one attorney who attempted to run for AG. Some of them have admitted to me in private conversations that the job of AG is NOT to "create law" but to defend the Commonwealth or prosecute for the Commonwealth. BTW, most of these people are Democrats, not Republicans.

Now let me shoot holes in your premise that Reilly is a "good guy" and not anti-gun. I will readily admit that the info to me is either directly from a person who was involved or someone once removed from the situation (here-say evidence, inadmissible in a court of law), but I have (luckily) never met Reilly although he did walk in front of my car in traffic one day in Downtown Boston.

- His office has refused to participate in the Gun Control Advisory Board meetings . . . refused to work with them, share his ideas on what he'd accept so that the GCAB could come out with one set of omnibus recommendations for a CMR that met ALL the handgun requirements. I have been told (by people linked to that committee) that the AG's office is invited to participate in all their meetings, and has steadfastly refused to do so.

- When the Glock "issue" came up with the AG, he went to the press with his announcement but refused to discuss it with the GCAB. He refused to provide the GCAB with a copy of his letter to Glock. If he is a "good guy", why not share the info and work to a solution so that the product becomes acceptable to all the requirements?

- Why has the AG's office refused to acknowledge what they will accept, provide a list of AG approved handguns? He/his people have met with many of the big gun makers who sent legal teams here to discuss what they had to do to meet MA requirements. The requirements are not substantially different than CA requirements, so there is only marginal cost in getting guns tested to meet both MA and CA. I've been told by one national sales manager that after their legal team met with the AG, they realized that he was going to play "gotcha" (like he did with Glock) and thus they decided NOT to do any business in MA. I believe that this is also the case for the other major mfrs, and for the same reason.

- If he isn't anti-gun, why didn't he come out with a CMR that allows MSP to issue MA Ammo Dealer Licenses to out-of-state vendors? I've spoken to a number of out-of-state vendors who told me that they would be more than willing to pay $100/year for such a license. The CMR could dictate that the terms of the license require a buyer to Fax/Email/USMail a copy of their LTC to the vendor and vendor must ship ammo with "adult signature required" (even named party only). That would meet the requirements of MGLs that only licensed individuals buy/possess ammo/components.

- If the AG's office wasn't anti-gun, then the history of the AG Regs would have shown a need for such action. GOAL spent many thousands of $$ to get copies of the background for these regs. After a run-around, much info redacted, etc. the final report is (I think) still on the GOAL website. The docs that they did get showed that the senior staff in the AG's office stated that there was NO NEED FOR ANY CONSUMER PROTECTION REGULATIONS FOR GUNS. Further the staff directly questioned WHY the AG's office was implementing such regulations! It was a solution to a non-existent problem!

Now one concession that I'll make to Reilly is that the AG Regs were Harshbarger's brain-child, not Reilly's. IIRC the court case challenging them was "won" by the AG's office under Reilly's watch. However if he wasn't anti-gun, he could have modified them to coincide with the requirements that were implemented in Ch. 180 of the Acts of 1998! His stance has been anything but cooperative with EOPS, GCAB, gun mfrs who want to do the right thing, or the public that he's supposed to protect!

Counselor, I rest my case!

 

[Len-2A Training]

RKG,

Counselor, I'll have to concede legal points to you. I'm not an attorney, although I did once consider becoming a patent attorney when the late DEC was trying to convert some engineers into patent attorneys. The restrictions in the DEC program made it disadvantageous to me, so I took a "pass".

My biggest fear of Reilly catching wind of our bitching or bragging about what we bought/how we got it is that he'll use that info to slam all doors shut on our getting supplies to keep shooting. I'm convinced that he can and would do that! You may think that your buddy is pure as the driven snow and won't screw us, but I contend that he already has done that many times over.

- I was told by GOAL that Reilly actually opined that ALL ammo shipments into MA were "illegal", even to dealers/distributors! My response was that the first time a PD has to send on-duty officers out-of-state to pickup ammo for qualification will be the end of Reilly's political career. GOAL admitted that he chose to "selectively enforce" his opinion on direct shipments to consumers only as we have no clout to kill his career. Now maybe GOAL has it wrong (but I personally doubt it), but this is what I recall being told during a phone conversation I had some time ago (when the mail-order sales became a public issue).

Do you remember that at one time the MSP were stopping MA tagged cars at the NH border to check for "illegal purchases" of liquor in NH? MSP were sitting in NH state liquor store parking lots radioing MA tag numbers to their buddies on the MA side of the line so that they stopped the "right cars", searched them and <I don't recall if they confiscated or fined>, all without search warrants!

NH SP actually arrested one or more MA State Troopers at the liquor store parking lots. Big political stink between governors, major media play, etc. This was long before Harshbarger or Reilly, but it does set the tenor of what an AG will do if they want to!

When you said that they could still allow mail-order sales and meet the statutory objectives, you are confirming what I said earlier.

Personally I do NOT like politicians at all, but I do judge each person as an individual. So, that said I know a number of politicians (some I knew before they ran for political office) and one attorney who attempted to run for AG. Some of them have admitted to me in private conversations that the job of AG is NOT to "create law" but to defend the Commonwealth or prosecute for the Commonwealth. BTW, most of these people are Democrats, not Republicans.

Now let me shoot holes in your premise that Reilly is a "good guy" and not anti-gun. I will readily admit that the info to me is either directly from a person who was involved or someone once removed from the situation (here-say evidence, inadmissible in a court of law), but I have (luckily) never met Reilly although he did walk in front of my car in traffic one day in Downtown Boston.

- His office has refused to participate in the Gun Control Advisory Board meetings . . . refused to work with them, share his ideas on what he'd accept so that the GCAB could come out with one set of omnibus recommendations for a CMR that met ALL the handgun requirements. I have been told (by people linked to that committee) that the AG's office is invited to participate in all their meetings, and has steadfastly refused to do so.

- When the Glock "issue" came up with the AG, he went to the press with his announcement but refused to discuss it with the GCAB. He refused to provide the GCAB with a copy of his letter to Glock. If he is a "good guy", why not share the info and work to a solution so that the product becomes acceptable to all the requirements?

- Why has the AG's office refused to acknowledge what they will accept, provide a list of AG approved handguns? He/his people have met with many of the big gun makers who sent legal teams here to discuss what they had to do to meet MA requirements. The requirements are not substantially different than CA requirements, so there is only marginal cost in getting guns tested to meet both MA and CA. I've been told by one national sales manager that after their legal team met with the AG, they realized that he was going to play "gotcha" (like he did with Glock) and thus they decided NOT to do any business in MA. I believe that this is also the case for the other major mfrs, and for the same reason.

- If he isn't anti-gun, why didn't he come out with a CMR that allows MSP to issue MA Ammo Dealer Licenses to out-of-state vendors? I've spoken to a number of out-of-state vendors who told me that they would be more than willing to pay $100/year for such a license. The CMR could dictate that the terms of the license require a buyer to Fax/Email/USMail a copy of their LTC to the vendor and vendor must ship ammo with "adult signature required" (even named party only). That would meet the requirements of MGLs that only licensed individuals buy/possess ammo/components.

- If the AG's office wasn't anti-gun, then the history of the AG Regs would have shown a need for such action. GOAL spent many thousands of $$ to get copies of the background for these regs. After a run-around, much info redacted, etc. the final report is (I think) still on the GOAL website. The docs that they did get showed that the senior staff in the AG's office stated that there was NO NEED FOR ANY CONSUMER PROTECTION REGULATIONS FOR GUNS. Further the staff directly questioned WHY the AG's office was implementing such regulations! It was a solution to a non-existent problem!

Now one concession that I'll make to Reilly is that the AG Regs were Harshbarger's brain-child, not Reilly's. IIRC the court case challenging them was "won" by the AG's office under Reilly's watch. However if he wasn't anti-gun, he could have modified them to coincide with the requirements that were implemented in Ch. 180 of the Acts of 1998! His stance has been anything but cooperative with EOPS, GCAB, gun mfrs who want to do the right thing, or the public that he's supposed to protect!

Counselor, I rest my case!

 

[Len-2A Training]

RKG,

Counselor, I'll have to concede legal points to you. I'm not an attorney, although I did once consider becoming a patent attorney when the late DEC was trying to convert some engineers into patent attorneys. The restrictions in the DEC program made it disadvantageous to me, so I took a "pass".

My biggest fear of Reilly catching wind of our bitching or bragging about what we bought/how we got it is that he'll use that info to slam all doors shut on our getting supplies to keep shooting. I'm convinced that he can and would do that! You may think that your buddy is pure as the driven snow and won't screw us, but I contend that he already has done that many times over.

- I was told by GOAL that Reilly actually opined that ALL ammo shipments into MA were "illegal", even to dealers/distributors! My response was that the first time a PD has to send on-duty officers out-of-state to pickup ammo for qualification will be the end of Reilly's political career. GOAL admitted that he chose to "selectively enforce" his opinion on direct shipments to consumers only as we have no clout to kill his career. Now maybe GOAL has it wrong (but I personally doubt it), but this is what I recall being told during a phone conversation I had some time ago (when the mail-order sales became a public issue).

Do you remember that at one time the MSP were stopping MA tagged cars at the NH border to check for "illegal purchases" of liquor in NH? MSP were sitting in NH state liquor store parking lots radioing MA tag numbers to their buddies on the MA side of the line so that they stopped the "right cars", searched them and <I don't recall if they confiscated or fined>, all without search warrants!

NH SP actually arrested one or more MA State Troopers at the liquor store parking lots. Big political stink between governors, major media play, etc. This was long before Harshbarger or Reilly, but it does set the tenor of what an AG will do if they want to!

When you said that they could still allow mail-order sales and meet the statutory objectives, you are confirming what I said earlier.

Personally I do NOT like politicians at all, but I do judge each person as an individual. So, that said I know a number of politicians (some I knew before they ran for political office) and one attorney who attempted to run for AG. Some of them have admitted to me in private conversations that the job of AG is NOT to "create law" but to defend the Commonwealth or prosecute for the Commonwealth. BTW, most of these people are Democrats, not Republicans.

Now let me shoot holes in your premise that Reilly is a "good guy" and not anti-gun. I will readily admit that the info to me is either directly from a person who was involved or someone once removed from the situation (here-say evidence, inadmissible in a court of law), but I have (luckily) never met Reilly although he did walk in front of my car in traffic one day in Downtown Boston.

- His office has refused to participate in the Gun Control Advisory Board meetings . . . refused to work with them, share his ideas on what he'd accept so that the GCAB could come out with one set of omnibus recommendations for a CMR that met ALL the handgun requirements. I have been told (by people linked to that committee) that the AG's office is invited to participate in all their meetings, and has steadfastly refused to do so.

- When the Glock "issue" came up with the AG, he went to the press with his announcement but refused to discuss it with the GCAB. He refused to provide the GCAB with a copy of his letter to Glock. If he is a "good guy", why not share the info and work to a solution so that the product becomes acceptable to all the requirements?

- Why has the AG's office refused to acknowledge what they will accept, provide a list of AG approved handguns? He/his people have met with many of the big gun makers who sent legal teams here to discuss what they had to do to meet MA requirements. The requirements are not substantially different than CA requirements, so there is only marginal cost in getting guns tested to meet both MA and CA. I've been told by one national sales manager that after their legal team met with the AG, they realized that he was going to play "gotcha" (like he did with Glock) and thus they decided NOT to do any business in MA. I believe that this is also the case for the other major mfrs, and for the same reason.

- If he isn't anti-gun, why didn't he come out with a CMR that allows MSP to issue MA Ammo Dealer Licenses to out-of-state vendors? I've spoken to a number of out-of-state vendors who told me that they would be more than willing to pay $100/year for such a license. The CMR could dictate that the terms of the license require a buyer to Fax/Email/USMail a copy of their LTC to the vendor and vendor must ship ammo with "adult signature required" (even named party only). That would meet the requirements of MGLs that only licensed individuals buy/possess ammo/components.

- If the AG's office wasn't anti-gun, then the history of the AG Regs would have shown a need for such action. GOAL spent many thousands of $$ to get copies of the background for these regs. After a run-around, much info redacted, etc. the final report is (I think) still on the GOAL website. The docs that they did get showed that the senior staff in the AG's office stated that there was NO NEED FOR ANY CONSUMER PROTECTION REGULATIONS FOR GUNS. Further the staff directly questioned WHY the AG's office was implementing such regulations! It was a solution to a non-existent problem!

Now one concession that I'll make to Reilly is that the AG Regs were Harshbarger's brain-child, not Reilly's. IIRC the court case challenging them was "won" by the AG's office under Reilly's watch. However if he wasn't anti-gun, he could have modified them to coincide with the requirements that were implemented in Ch. 180 of the Acts of 1998! His stance has been anything but cooperative with EOPS, GCAB, gun mfrs who want to do the right thing, or the public that he's supposed to protect!

Counselor, I rest my case!

 

[Lynne]

Jo

I know Tom Reilly, personally and for a number of years. In general, he's about as apolitical a fellow who ever achieved elected office. He may or may not be personally anti-gun (we've actually never discussed the subject), but his ruling on this point -- given the statutes that he is obliged to recognize and enforce -- is hardly proof of anti-gun animus. I think some of the criticism he's received on this point is unfair.

RKG,

As a human being, General Reilly may well be a decent fellow. However, some of the statutes he is obliged to enforce are ones that HE enacted. CMR 16.4 (?) - the consumer protection crap IS his. GOAL spent untolled thousands in copying expenses to get thousands of documents from his office. There is not ONE single piece of evidence that proves the majority of guns are unsafe. He enacted that piece of horse offal without having to go through either house, all by himself. We have him to thank for the assinine prices of hand guns in this state, and we have him to blame for all the guns we look at and drool over and cannot buy. And, why is a number of these hand guns are unsafe for US, but it's more than okay for law enforcement to carry? Shouldn't the rule be that they're guns need to be safer because of their line of work? Tell me where the sense is in that.

Please don't tell me there's no proof of anti-gun animus. He's already shown there is.

 

[Lynne]

Jo

I know Tom Reilly, personally and for a number of years. In general, he's about as apolitical a fellow who ever achieved elected office. He may or may not be personally anti-gun (we've actually never discussed the subject), but his ruling on this point -- given the statutes that he is obliged to recognize and enforce -- is hardly proof of anti-gun animus. I think some of the criticism he's received on this point is unfair.

RKG,

As a human being, General Reilly may well be a decent fellow. However, some of the statutes he is obliged to enforce are ones that HE enacted. CMR 16.4 (?) - the consumer protection crap IS his. GOAL spent untolled thousands in copying expenses to get thousands of documents from his office. There is not ONE single piece of evidence that proves the majority of guns are unsafe. He enacted that piece of horse offal without having to go through either house, all by himself. We have him to thank for the assinine prices of hand guns in this state, and we have him to blame for all the guns we look at and drool over and cannot buy. And, why is a number of these hand guns are unsafe for US, but it's more than okay for law enforcement to carry? Shouldn't the rule be that they're guns need to be safer because of their line of work? Tell me where the sense is in that.

Please don't tell me there's no proof of anti-gun animus. He's already shown there is.

 

[Lynne]

Jo

I know Tom Reilly, personally and for a number of years. In general, he's about as apolitical a fellow who ever achieved elected office. He may or may not be personally anti-gun (we've actually never discussed the subject), but his ruling on this point -- given the statutes that he is obliged to recognize and enforce -- is hardly proof of anti-gun animus. I think some of the criticism he's received on this point is unfair.

RKG,

As a human being, General Reilly may well be a decent fellow. However, some of the statutes he is obliged to enforce are ones that HE enacted. CMR 16.4 (?) - the consumer protection crap IS his. GOAL spent untolled thousands in copying expenses to get thousands of documents from his office. There is not ONE single piece of evidence that proves the majority of guns are unsafe. He enacted that piece of horse offal without having to go through either house, all by himself. We have him to thank for the assinine prices of hand guns in this state, and we have him to blame for all the guns we look at and drool over and cannot buy. And, why is a number of these hand guns are unsafe for US, but it's more than okay for law enforcement to carry? Shouldn't the rule be that they're guns need to be safer because of their line of work? Tell me where the sense is in that.

Please don't tell me there's no proof of anti-gun animus. He's already shown there is.

 

[RKG]

Len: Your indictment of my "Reilly is a guns good-guy" pitch is well structured and well executed. It suffers from only one flaw:

I never made that pitch.

What I said was that I had no idea how he felt about guns generally.

In my experience, most folks fall into one of several categories:

Class 1: Rabidly anti, as a matter of liberal idiocy or neurotic response to a personal situation. (Anyone who has the time and inclination might want to research the personal history of one Nelson T. (a/k/a "Pete") Shields, now or formerly the head of HCI. The short version is that his son was murdered -- shot to death -- in San Francisco. But: the group that shot him was motivated by racial prejudice; they set out to kill one white person a week, using whatever means was available; and only one or two of the dozen or so of their victims was dispatched by a firearm. This should be exhibit A in favor of the proposition that it is the shooter, not the gun, that lies behind violence, yet Shields, nominally a well-educated engineer, drew exactly the opposition conclusion, possibly because he felt guilty at having allowed his son to go to college in HippieTown in the first place.)

Class 2: Anti, to varying degrees and largely as a matter of ignorance. (These people can be approached, if done in a respectful and logical way. Or at least some of them. Indeed, I'd like to think I've converted a few, usually by taking them for an afternoon outing (which starts with the Home Firearms Safety Course, or an abbreviation of it).)

Class 3: Entirely neutral. (Not many.)

Class 4: In favor, in a reasonable way. (Would, for instance, allow disarming of convicted felons.)

Class 5: Rabidly in favor. (Should be no restrictions whatsoever, under any circumstances, and everyone else is a commie. These people do our cause little good.)

All I said (though, admittedly I used a lot of words to say it) was that Tom Reilly could not be categorized as either the first or second category solely on the basis of his apparent interpretation of ch. 140, sec. 129C, and that the statute is the real source of the problem. I stand on that point.

I appreciate your reminding me that the ch. 93A regs were the brainchild of Harshbarger. Now, Scott was definitely in Class 1, and remember that he might one time have become our Governor. He is exactly what I had in mind when I pointed out that we could do worse than Tom Reilly.

 

[RKG]

Len: Your indictment of my "Reilly is a guns good-guy" pitch is well structured and well executed. It suffers from only one flaw:

I never made that pitch.

What I said was that I had no idea how he felt about guns generally.

In my experience, most folks fall into one of several categories:

Class 1: Rabidly anti, as a matter of liberal idiocy or neurotic response to a personal situation. (Anyone who has the time and inclination might want to research the personal history of one Nelson T. (a/k/a "Pete") Shields, now or formerly the head of HCI. The short version is that his son was murdered -- shot to death -- in San Francisco. But: the group that shot him was motivated by racial prejudice; they set out to kill one white person a week, using whatever means was available; and only one or two of the dozen or so of their victims was dispatched by a firearm. This should be exhibit A in favor of the proposition that it is the shooter, not the gun, that lies behind violence, yet Shields, nominally a well-educated engineer, drew exactly the opposition conclusion, possibly because he felt guilty at having allowed his son to go to college in HippieTown in the first place.)

Class 2: Anti, to varying degrees and largely as a matter of ignorance. (These people can be approached, if done in a respectful and logical way. Or at least some of them. Indeed, I'd like to think I've converted a few, usually by taking them for an afternoon outing (which starts with the Home Firearms Safety Course, or an abbreviation of it).)

Class 3: Entirely neutral. (Not many.)

Class 4: In favor, in a reasonable way. (Would, for instance, allow disarming of convicted felons.)

Class 5: Rabidly in favor. (Should be no restrictions whatsoever, under any circumstances, and everyone else is a commie. These people do our cause little good.)

All I said (though, admittedly I used a lot of words to say it) was that Tom Reilly could not be categorized as either the first or second category solely on the basis of his apparent interpretation of ch. 140, sec. 129C, and that the statute is the real source of the problem. I stand on that point.

I appreciate your reminding me that the ch. 93A regs were the brainchild of Harshbarger. Now, Scott was definitely in Class 1, and remember that he might one time have become our Governor. He is exactly what I had in mind when I pointed out that we could do worse than Tom Reilly.

 

[RKG]

Len: Your indictment of my "Reilly is a guns good-guy" pitch is well structured and well executed. It suffers from only one flaw:

I never made that pitch.

What I said was that I had no idea how he felt about guns generally.

In my experience, most folks fall into one of several categories:

Class 1: Rabidly anti, as a matter of liberal idiocy or neurotic response to a personal situation. (Anyone who has the time and inclination might want to research the personal history of one Nelson T. (a/k/a "Pete") Shields, now or formerly the head of HCI. The short version is that his son was murdered -- shot to death -- in San Francisco. But: the group that shot him was motivated by racial prejudice; they set out to kill one white person a week, using whatever means was available; and only one or two of the dozen or so of their victims was dispatched by a firearm. This should be exhibit A in favor of the proposition that it is the shooter, not the gun, that lies behind violence, yet Shields, nominally a well-educated engineer, drew exactly the opposition conclusion, possibly because he felt guilty at having allowed his son to go to college in HippieTown in the first place.)

Class 2: Anti, to varying degrees and largely as a matter of ignorance. (These people can be approached, if done in a respectful and logical way. Or at least some of them. Indeed, I'd like to think I've converted a few, usually by taking them for an afternoon outing (which starts with the Home Firearms Safety Course, or an abbreviation of it).)

Class 3: Entirely neutral. (Not many.)

Class 4: In favor, in a reasonable way. (Would, for instance, allow disarming of convicted felons.)

Class 5: Rabidly in favor. (Should be no restrictions whatsoever, under any circumstances, and everyone else is a commie. These people do our cause little good.)

All I said (though, admittedly I used a lot of words to say it) was that Tom Reilly could not be categorized as either the first or second category solely on the basis of his apparent interpretation of ch. 140, sec. 129C, and that the statute is the real source of the problem. I stand on that point.

I appreciate your reminding me that the ch. 93A regs were the brainchild of Harshbarger. Now, Scott was definitely in Class 1, and remember that he might one time have become our Governor. He is exactly what I had in mind when I pointed out that we could do worse than Tom Reilly.

 

[Len-2A Training]

RKG,

Thanks for the compliment Counselor!

Take a read at what is here . . . I meant to put the URL in my long post, but got sidetracked with some other tasks.

http://www.goal.org/news/agfraud/fraudhome.html

Harshbarger is a has-been now, I doubt that he could get elected to anything. I know that a top executive at NU side-stepped normal procedure and hired Scotty (beam him up . . . please) in the Law School. I have it from high level inside sources at NU (my alma mater, I'm ashamed to say) that there was a lot of teeth-gnashing in the Law School. He is neither respected or liked by his peers or management there.

Actions speak louder than words . . .

- I still say that Reilly is rabid-anti. If he weren't, he would at least work with the other departments in state gov't to set up one non-confusing set of guidelines.


Again, I say that the best thing that you can do for MA gun owners is to take your buddy shooting and let him learn for himself that it's not evil, that "unsafe guns" are anything but that, that it is people that make something like this safe or unsafe. Do your part and try to convert one person who can really make a difference here.

 

[Len-2A Training]

RKG,

Thanks for the compliment Counselor!

Take a read at what is here . . . I meant to put the URL in my long post, but got sidetracked with some other tasks.

http://www.goal.org/news/agfraud/fraudhome.html

Harshbarger is a has-been now, I doubt that he could get elected to anything. I know that a top executive at NU side-stepped normal procedure and hired Scotty (beam him up . . . please) in the Law School. I have it from high level inside sources at NU (my alma mater, I'm ashamed to say) that there was a lot of teeth-gnashing in the Law School. He is neither respected or liked by his peers or management there.

Actions speak louder than words . . .

- I still say that Reilly is rabid-anti. If he weren't, he would at least work with the other departments in state gov't to set up one non-confusing set of guidelines.


Again, I say that the best thing that you can do for MA gun owners is to take your buddy shooting and let him learn for himself that it's not evil, that "unsafe guns" are anything but that, that it is people that make something like this safe or unsafe. Do your part and try to convert one person who can really make a difference here.

 

[Len-2A Training]

RKG,

Thanks for the compliment Counselor!

Take a read at what is here . . . I meant to put the URL in my long post, but got sidetracked with some other tasks.

http://www.goal.org/news/agfraud/fraudhome.html

Harshbarger is a has-been now, I doubt that he could get elected to anything. I know that a top executive at NU side-stepped normal procedure and hired Scotty (beam him up . . . please) in the Law School. I have it from high level inside sources at NU (my alma mater, I'm ashamed to say) that there was a lot of teeth-gnashing in the Law School. He is neither respected or liked by his peers or management there.

Actions speak louder than words . . .

- I still say that Reilly is rabid-anti. If he weren't, he would at least work with the other departments in state gov't to set up one non-confusing set of guidelines.


Again, I say that the best thing that you can do for MA gun owners is to take your buddy shooting and let him learn for himself that it's not evil, that "unsafe guns" are anything but that, that it is people that make something like this safe or unsafe. Do your part and try to convert one person who can really make a difference here.

 

[RKG]

1. You may be right.

2. If I can arrange it, maybe I'll take you up on your suggestion. Though, if you accept my people classification system and your premise that Tom is Class 1, it would be a waste of gas.

 

[RKG]

1. You may be right.

2. If I can arrange it, maybe I'll take you up on your suggestion. Though, if you accept my people classification system and your premise that Tom is Class 1, it would be a waste of gas.

 

[RKG]

1. You may be right.

2. If I can arrange it, maybe I'll take you up on your suggestion. Though, if you accept my people classification system and your premise that Tom is Class 1, it would be a waste of gas.

 

[JonJ]

I'd stick my neck out say he's Class 1. He wants to be Gov. He's going to toe the party line and pander to every inner city group to garner votes. His campaign will feed on the "fears" of inner city violence. And what better cause to take up than the banning of the 2nd Amendment.