Comm2A files against the AG on LCIs, Draper v Coakley

exodious said:
Because they and/or the dealer could have been fined, IIRC, $5000 per non-AG-compliant firearm sold?
Click to expand...

How the heck was glock on the hook? A manufacturer can sell whatever the hell they want to the dealer, EOPS, AG, or whatever, right?? If glock sells gen 4s to a dealer to sell to LE, why is it their problem if the dealer sells to who they arent "supposed" to?

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
 
crazymjb said:
How the heck was glock on the hook? A manufacturer can sell whatever the hell they want to the dealer, EOPS, AG, or whatever, right?? If glock sells gen 4s to a dealer to sell to LE, why is it their problem if the dealer sells to who they arent "supposed" to?

Mike
Click to expand...

Because the AG says so. They use a club to gain compliance.
 
One thing I have noticed about "gun rights cases" is that the court is easily swayed by the nature of the plaintiff/defendant, in a manner that would be completely ignored in other cases.'

When a case is about a dirtbag and search/seizure law, the court is pretty good about ignoring the specifics of the defendant and looking only at how police conduct conforms, or does not conform, to the law regarding search and seizure. On the other hand, in gun related cases like this, any dirt (real or conjured) regarding the plaintiff could seriously tilt the court's analysis.

Just look at Chardin - the ability of adults to have juvenile sealed records treated as sealed all hinged on an appeal by someone who, as a Boston street kid, carried an illegal handgun at age 14. The other side could not have asked for a better setup to help the SJC rule the way they were predisposed to. We might have had a better outcome if it was some kid convicted of running a pump and dump out of his parents basement manipulating penny stock prices.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
One thing I have noticed about "gun rights cases" is that the court is easily swayed by the nature of the plaintiff/defendant, in a manner that would be completely ignored in other cases.'

When a case is about a dirtbag and search/seizure law, the court is pretty good about ignoring the specifics of the defendant and looking only at how police conduct conforms, or does not conform, to the law regarding search and seizure. On the other hand, in gun related cases like this, any dirt (real or conjured) regarding the plaintiff could seriously tilt the court's analysis.

Just look at Chardin - the ability of adults to have juvenile sealed records treated as sealed all hinged on an appeal by someone who, as a Boston street kid, carried an illegal handgun at age 14. The other side could not have asked for a better setup to help the SJC rule the way they were predisposed to. We might have had a better outcome if it was some kid convicted of running a pump and dump out of his parents basement manipulating penny stock prices.
Click to expand...

I think the problem is the court gets to use the excuse of "balancing public safety interests, COUGH *bullshit* COUGH must be balanced with peoples rights, blah blah blah, durka durka, so wah lah." When the plaintiff is clean they can't reliably use that cop out.

-Mike
 
crazymjb said:
How the heck was glock on the hook? A manufacturer can sell whatever the hell they want to the dealer, EOPS, AG, or whatever, right?? If glock sells gen 4s to a dealer to sell to LE, why is it their problem if the dealer sells to who they arent "supposed" to?

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
Click to expand...

They're on the hook because part of the "deal" is the manufacturer is supposed to be the entity that asserts that their gun is compliant. The usual deal is Glock had to have fired off a letter to the AGs office stating that they believed the handguns they were offering to the MA market were CMR940 compliant; AG's BS attitude is probably "well they were involved in "offering it for sale" in the commonwealth, blah blah."

-Mike
 
But dont they not even need to be compliant to be given to an FFL who then can sell off list guns to LE?

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
 
crazymjb said:
But dont they not even need to be compliant to be given to an FFL who then can sell off list guns to LE?
Click to expand...

Off list (EOPS roster) is a whole other ballgame which has nothing to do with CMR940. It's not even about "having" the guns, its about marketing/selling/offering for sale to "unwashed consumers" etc. You can have a warehouse of non CMR940 compliant guns in MA if you want, but if you "market them for sale to MA consumers" or somesuch, suddenly according to the AG you're under the purview of CMR940.

-Mike
 
Why is it that Com2A's briefings are clearly and plainly written whereas the AG's read like I wrote them after an all night bender? Oh, it's because the AG's office is full of hacks
 
pastera said:
Why is it that Com2A's briefings are clearly and plainly written whereas the AG's read like I wrote them after an all night bender? Oh, it's because the AG's office is full of hacks
Click to expand...

It's probably because Comm2A is working to expose the truth and the opposition is working to obfuscate it.
 
Took about an hour juggling between the PDF and dictionary.com but I got through it. Section III was some heavy $h1t. How lawyers write and read this without exploding is beyond me. respect

The entire time reading this I was thinking "just don't put the damn gun in your mouth! Duh!

Did I read the part right where it says "all semi autos have a loaded chamber indicator; the slide"? Brilliant can you squeeze in that all guns have a safety; the user?
 
Last edited:
Even italics and emphasis won't change an anti judge's mind, unfortunately, nor will it help them to use facts and logic. (because, "Gun") That said, we have seen some encouraging outcomes from federal district courts recently regarding civil rights, so I hope for a reasonable outcome.
 
so essentially we haven't even passed the 1st tollbooth and the kids in backseat are already asking if we're there yet?
 
I do love reading these even if I do get lost in the text at times.

One question, what is the point of Exhibit A? I don't see it referenced anywhere in the filing.
 
Nice. I like when you rub there nose in it. It might be a basis for a future lawsuit IF the regulations definition is capable of being understood.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Hartford Connecticut Residents Form Armed Group To Defend Against Violent Crime
Replies
6
Views
235
SS1
SS1
Yesterday Was The 10 Year Anniversary Of The Bundy Family Cattle Ranch Standoff Against The BLM
Replies
4
Views
308
Matt_SERE
Matt_SERE
An interesting take on guns from the other side.
Replies
17
Views
722
MAGA99
MAGA99
EOTECH OGL: On Gun Laser
Replies
1
Views
31
cape9mm
C
Mike Venturino has left the range
Replies
3
Views
279
gerrycaruso
gerrycaruso
Back
Top Bottom