Ruger LCP on it's way to Mass compliance?

[abomb60]

I guess you don't understand why guns aren't on the EOPS List!!! Since the testing requirements are essentially almost identical, CA has THREE TIMES as many guns listed. Do you have a theory why?

I do . . . they don't bother with MA because they know it won't buy them anything due to the AG BS and being unable to determine what the AG might object to (that costs a fortune to recover all the guns, etc.).

I understand that and why manufactuers choose not to deal with MA. However my statement is still accurate in that a firearm has to be on the EOPS list before a FFL can sell it to anyone in this state.

 

[Scrivener]

My memory might be fuzzy, but IIRC, BPS was also selling, or offering for sale, various off list guns. (eg, like Springfield XDs, etc). I am unsure how this played into the case at hand. If this was the case, then BPS was dealing with a lot more than just a CMR940 violation. (A CMR940 violation is civil, the roster is criminal... two different ballgames.

Your memory is fine. BP was peddling guns NOT on the roster, despite being warned about its actions.

 

[drgrant]

But, other than trying to bleed the defendant dry filiing motions, disclosures and whatnot to drag out the headlines and rack up the FFL's legal bills.. Would this actually stand up if it got in front of a court?

Don't know. It depends on the avenue used to bring a case against the state. "Restraint of trade" comes to mind but obviously this one is precarious because there are a lot of incidents where the state gets away "lawfully" with restraining trade- for example, exorbitant taxes on cigarettes, etc, or "mass approved" lists of liquor that stores can sell, etc.... This state makes me nauseous...

If they can arbitrarily have say an S&W 1911 be AG ok, and an identical Springfield 1911 not be ok would this be likely to stand up?

Well, that would be a bad example because the Springfield isn't even on the EOPS roster. The -law- says it must be on the roster... .if it's not on the EOPS roster, then AG compliance regulations aren't even relevant. A better "test" would be "Why is a Glock with a 10 pound trigger not OK but but the P99AS is OK" Somehow or another the paint based LCI is "okay" on guns like the P99AS, but the tactile indicator isn't "good enough" on the Glock....

As we've visited this topic over and over again, the long and the short of it is I don't think most entities, whether the manufacturer or dealers, have the stomach and money to waste on handgun compliance.... so as a result the state wins by default because it has virtually unlimited resources.

Part of the problem is simple demographics. MA has only 250,000 or so "licensed" gun owners (eg, people that are legally eligible to actually buy new guns) and most of them probably don't own handguns, or if they do. don't have more than one or two of them. This makes the market pretty soft, with limited growth potential. This isn't TX where you bring your friend to the range, he/she falls in love with shooting and then decides hes going to buy a gun next week, and can just stroll into a store with some cash and a valid ID, and clean background, and get basically whatever they want.

Let's say hypothetically the lawsuit costs a half million dollars and is successful. (And I'm being conservative with that figure.... we know lawyers are expensive. ) This means that if the dealers pay for it, at a profit of say, $50/handgun, they collectively have to sell 10,000 handguns just to break even. The manufacturer has a greater benefit because their margins are greater, but the same logistical problems still apply. I would guess it takes a long time to sell 10,000 handguns in MA period as a whole, not just one brand. Part of the problem is the incentives for the dealers are low. There are still a lot of new compliant guns for sale in MA, and more often than not, those guns usually satisfy the demands of the shops' customers. Making more guns legal would only marginally increase their profit base.... because a guy that comes into your store intending to buy a .45 and a .22, for example, is still going to buy only two guns, regardless of the brands that exist. Even in underrepresented categories (for example, pocket guns like the LCP) the buyer is probably still going to purchase an alternative, for example, a j-frame revolver. Any way you slice it the store is still going to get a sale, or collect a transfer fee. I guess my point is, the consumer is still going to buy something, even if it's not what they really wanted. The consumers here are the ones that suffer the most (eg, from lack of choice) not so much the dealers- the dealers know you will still buy -something- and they don't often care what that "something" is.

-Mike

 

[Len-2A Training]

Have any dealers been slapped with this and taken it to court? Assuming a glock xx (on the eops, not on AG) has anybody tried to fight it?
I would suspect that if pushed Glock would request the FFL take the guns back (to keep in good with the LEO contracts).
Obviously the prospect of an FFL taking on a fight against the AG's limitless funds is daunting. The prospect is that in all likelihood could would bankrupt the FFL. But do we know if anybody has tried?

Already happened some years ago. Five (IIRC) dealers got AG letters assessing fines and cease/desist orders. Some proved that the sales were exempt (LEOs), others I'm not sure what happened . . . other than one dealer who brags to everyone who will listen that he challenged the AG in court and won by default (AG didn't send anyone to present their case).

My memory might be fuzzy, but IIRC, BPS was also selling, or offering for sale, various off list guns. (eg, like Springfield XDs, etc). I am unsure how this played into the case at hand. If this was the case, then BPS was dealing with a lot more than just a CMR940 violation. (A CMR940 violation is civil, the roster is criminal... two different ballgames. )

Yes and no. It turns out that they indeed offer guns not on the EOPS List (thus criminal), HOWEVER the rat that contacted CHSB/AG about the sales only (according to his words to me and others at a meeting) complained about Glock sales. Therefore, Glocks were the ONLY guns recovered (or attempted) by BP. I was in the store for the grand opening and saw what they had for sale (although I didn't bring the EOPS List and was unaware that some were not on that List at that time) AND I was in their the following morning when one person returned the Glock that he had bought the night before. I know the person who made that purchase and we talked as all this was going down. BP said that his was the "last Glock" that they were retrieving and they claimed that only 3 Glocks were sold the prior night. I will say that their prices on the Glocks and other guns were very high ($100-200 more than your favorite local dealer) and no bargain.

Years ago there was an MA dealer org which took up a case and dropped the ball on it, from what I remember. Not sure if this caused problems with regards to case law, etc. Supposedly some paperwork was supposed to be filed with the court and they didn't do it, and the whole thing died in the water.

The problem is now it is hard to get dealers to do anything- since most of the major players suffer under the same rules, they probably view the playing field as being leveled..... . Not to mention the costs are pretty high for legal fees and the like. Part of the problem is there may currently be no viable avenues for attack. This might change, of course, if Heller/Macdonald ends up being incorporated at the federal level, then it may open up more avenues for other cases to be brought. (EG, an argument could be made that the AG's regulations, at least, end up being a de-facto "ban" and restrict the purchase of guns otherwise in common use, among other arguments. ). Even then, it's still going to take a LOT of money and time.

Mike it wasn't "a dealer" but a short-lived MA Dealers Assn that sued along with ASSC (IIRC on the initials). They lost the case and had xx days to appeal. According to GOAL (my source for this info) ASSC was dying out as an org and the MA Dealers Assn didn't notify GOAL or do anything. The MA Dealers Assn also died out, although one boisterous person from that defunct org still gets his mug on every TV interview about guns and spouts off that he's President of the <dead> org.

 

[Len-2A Training]

BTW, the EOPS List and AG Regs are mutually exclusive and parallel hurdles to clear.

Nothing prevents a mfr from claiming AG Reg-compliance PRIOR to getting EOPS Listed. Common sense says not to do this, but they are not required to be serial efforts.