What are the AG regs based on?

Mass-diver

NES Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
6,276
Likes
1,867
Location
South Shore, MA
Feedback: 31 / 0 / 0
10lb trigger, loaded chamber indicator, etc where did this consumer protection stuff come from. Did someone just make it up?

I don't understand how this stuff holds up in light of the recent supreme court ruling. It's a handgun ban pure and simple. Only guns that meet some BS criteria are availabe for sale. What if tommorow they added another criteria that no make meet.......
 
It was pulled freshly from Scott Harshbarger's ass? That's about as close as we'll ever know, I think.

I am interested to see what happens to the lawsuit in CA WRT their "list". If one is successful there, an inroad is possible here.

-Mike
 
What I don't grasp is how is it only applicable to the average Joe yet law enforcement agents are immune? a firearm is somehow unsafe for us yet not for them?
 
I'm pretty sure they were the brainchild of former Mass AG Scott Harshbarger.

Like other Massachusetts laws and regulations, they are based on a simple idea: Make it as difficult as possible for a peaceable, law-abiding citizen to procure a firearm for lawful defense of self.
 
A section of the General Laws, I believe it is Chapter 93A, gives the AG the authority to develop regulations that protect the consumer from unfair or deceptive business practices. It is very common in government (both state and federal) to pursue a policy goal through regulations rather than legislation simply because it can be easier. Environmental agencies do this sort of thing all the time. They will write and enforce regulations that go beyond the letter of the law. The legislature and or governor/president don't say anything about it because it allows these policy goals to implemented without them having to put their necks on the line.

So at some point a group of people realized that since guns are "dangerous" they could be regulated by the AG under the "consumer protection" law. After all, us consumers don't want to get lured into buying those kinds of guns that go ahead and shoot themselves. That would be dangerous for the children. This allowed the "too dangerous" guns to be banned via regulatory fiat instead of having to go through the normal, democratic legislative process that nanny staters find oh so burdensome.

As to the specifics of the regs such as the 10 lb trigger pull and other nonsense, it was probably whatever was easiest at the time to get past the sheeple at large without going far enough to make people question their intent.
 
It was pulled freshly from Scott Harshbarger's ass? That's about as close as we'll ever know, I think.

I am interested to see what happens to the lawsuit in CA WRT their "list". If one is successful there, an inroad is possible here.

-Mike

I still believe we can challenge the EOPS and AG list just by using the "in common use" portion of the Heller ruling, there is no way that the state could defend it when the very firearms they are preventing the sale of in Mass are in common use in the majority of other states by civilians and law enforcement.

Preventing an FFL from transferring or selling such firearms is a defacto ban of those firearms, the very thing that the Heller and McDonald ruling forbade.
 
A section of the General Laws, I believe it is Chapter 93A, gives the AG the authority to develop regulations that protect the consumer from unfair or deceptive business practices. It is very common in government (both state and federal) to pursue a policy goal through regulations rather than legislation simply because it can be easier. Environmental agencies do this sort of thing all the time. They will write and enforce regulations that go beyond the letter of the law. The legislature and or governor/president don't say anything about it because it allows these policy goals to implemented without them having to put their necks on the line.

So at some point a group of people realized that since guns are "dangerous" they could be regulated by the AG under the "consumer protection" law. After all, us consumers don't want to get lured into buying those kinds of guns that go ahead and shoot themselves. That would be dangerous for the children. This allowed the "too dangerous" guns to be banned via regulatory fiat instead of having to go through the normal, democratic legislative process that nanny staters find oh so burdensome.

As to the specifics of the regs such as the 10 lb trigger pull and other nonsense, it was probably whatever was easiest at the time to get past the sheeple at large without going far enough to make people question their intent.

This ^.
 
I still believe we can challenge the EOPS and AG list just by using the "in common use" portion of the Heller ruling, there is no way that the state could defend it when the very firearms they are preventing the sale of in Mass are in common use in the majority of other states by civilians and law enforcement.

Preventing an FFL from transferring or selling such firearms is a defacto ban of those firearms, the very thing that the Heller and McDonald ruling forbade.

Exactly, I can see (while of course I don't agree with), machine guns bans being upheld, but here in MA they have banned some of the most popular pistols in the country. There's no way that passes muster under Heller (and now McDonald).
 
At one point the AG admitted that the regulations were in place to prevent handgun sales. They admitted that about 4 years ago.
 
What are the AG regs based on?

Steamer.gif
 
What I don't grasp is how is it only applicable to the average Joe yet law enforcement agents are immune? a firearm is somehow unsafe for us yet not for them?

Bear in mind the LEO is also not the "immune" party- the dealer is- the dealer just
gets a "I won't get sued by the AG" card for that particular transaction. Yes, it's a
technicality, but it's important to understand that these regs are dealer based, not
binding directly against gun owners. the only reason the compliance BS has any
perceived teeth at all against gun owners is because of the absurd federal law that
prohibits people from buying handguns outside of their "state of residence".

-Mike
 
The AG's regs come from the same place that marketing projections come from. You can find exactly where that is, but you'll need a flashlight and a proctologist.
 
Spite, political aspirations, and that ever prevalent liberal trait...hatred!

10lb trigger, loaded chamber indicator, etc where did this consumer protection stuff come from. Did someone just make it up?

I don't understand how this stuff holds up in light of the recent supreme court ruling. It's a handgun ban pure and simple. Only guns that meet some BS criteria are availabe for sale. What if tommorow they added another criteria that no make meet.......
 
I have to give props to the AG. [SARCASM] It was ingenious to regulated guns under consumer protection laws. You essentially limit the availability of guns without violating the 2nd amendment. The nanny state is trying to save us from unsafe products. Its the same laws that ban the sale of toys with lead in them or cars that don't meet safety standards.

I don't see how the AG regs will ever go away. I compare it to the capability to pump your own gas in NJ. Only in NJ could you blow yourself up unless a 15 year old pumps it for you. Same as buying a colt 1911 here. In mass it will comit mass murder if dropped, but in any other state it just goes klunk on the floor.
 
I have to give props to the AG. [SARCASM] It was ingenious to regulated guns under consumer protection laws. You essentially limit the availability of guns without violating the 2nd amendment.
Thus the intention of "enumerated powers" in the Federal scheme...

It was well understood 200+ years ago that government would seek to expand its power in every conceivable manner. You have 100's of monkeys banging away at computers now writing bills trying to find ways to do it without us noticing. There is literally no way for us to keep up with it (as, for example the healthcare bill was passed at various stages so quickly it was not possible that anyone, much less us, could have read it all the way through prior to its vote).
 
Great work, what ever became of it? Any lawsuits?
It used to be there somewhere - yes, unfortunately, they were reversed in a strange circumstance as the organization doing it fell apart before the appeal. So, not only were they reversed, but standing was lost forever...

The dealers have the easiest path to demonstrate standing as they are the ones who are regulated. We have standing in other ways if we are harmed as consumers or our civil rights are violated, but its a much more contorted path than the dealers.

But, once they blew the appeal process, the door was closed forever in many regards for the dealers.
 
Back
Top Bottom