Target Regulation Hearings

[Rob Boudrie]

I attended the EOPS target regulation hearing at One Ashburton Place in Boston this AM, and am going to share my impressions.

First, my expectation of a "hearing" would be a fairly large room with a large number of people in attendance. Wrong - it was held around the table at a conference room on the 13th floor.

An attorney from EOPS was present, as were two attorney's from the AGs office, Jim Wallace of GOAL, The Scrivener representing SVI/Infinity, A representative from Glock, and a friend of mine who works around the block who stopped by to observe. One other person entered later but did not speak, so I do not know what her function was. With the exception of Jim Wallace of Goal who is a public persona, I am not mentioning names of these individuals as I have not obtained their permission to do so.

What happened...

Only one of the two AG reps spoke, requesting that the regulations be constructed in the strictest manner possible to assure that no guns with uses other than target be permitted. He also requested that a statement that "inclusion on this list does not indicate compliance with AG requirements", mentioned the need to protect consumers from unsafe guns, and how effective the regulations have been at in increasing public safety.

Jim Wallace spoke briefly, and expressed concern over the fact that the draft regs require submission by the manufacturer.

The Scriv spoke about target features, the need for objective criteria, and that consumers of target guns are sophisticated purchasers who do not need this "protection" when spending several thousand dollars on a target gun.

I spoke briefly on behalf of USPSA competitors, and requested that dealers be allowed to apply to have guns listed, as it is not practical for some manufacturers selling only a small number of very expensive guns in MA to make such application, particularly when they are brought into the US by an independent importer. I made some specific suggestions as to how to introduce objectivity into the process, and urged that action to finalize the regulations be made within a reasonable timeframe. I concluded by submitting written commentary that was somewhat more detailed and precise.

The Glock rep did not speak, as it was his intent to attend as an observer only (and he drove quite a distance to do so).

A representative from Camfour arrived as the hearing concluded, however, the EOPS attorney conducting the hearing graciously offered to remain and take his statement. The chair also announced that the public comment period was being extended until the close of business tomorrow, 3/15/07.

It's worth noting that both Glock and SVI/Infinity were paying someone to be at this meeting which I consider an impressive show of support when you consider the number of manufacturers that did the expedient thing and just wrote off Massachusetts.

 

[JonJ]

Only one of the two AG reps spoke, requesting that the regulations be constructed in the strictest manner possible to assure that no guns with uses other than target be permitted. He also requested that a statement that "inclusion on this list does not indicate compliance with AG requirements", mentioned the need to protect consumers from unsafe guns, and how effective the regulations have been at in increasing public safety.

I guess this answers the question of how Martha feels about the AG regs. Bummer...
Thanks for the update, Rob.

 

[EddieCoyle]

Thanks Rob and Scrivener.

 

[Lynne]

Rob hun - 1st, it's Jim Wallace. 2nd - thanks for doing this.

 

[Dan Hurley]

Rob and Scrivener, thank you very, very much for working to support this effort. And thank you also for posting your observations of the hearing.

I must have been a moron (perhaps as usual). I was expecting that this listing of "target" and "competition" pistols would allow them to bypass the AG's regulations (several of which are completely beyond my capacity to comprehend). Obviously, I was incorrect.

And now, I don't exactly know the purpose of the Target regulations. They could list anything and everything, yet the pistols would still be subject to the AG's unilateral interpretation of a proper handgun?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Rob hun - 1st, it's Jim Wallace. 2nd - thanks for doing this.

Thanks - I realized that as I walked away from the computer and actually had it fixed, probably while you were making your post.

 

[LoginName]

Only one of the two AG reps spoke, requesting that the regulations be constructed in the strictest manner possible to assure that no guns with uses other than target be permitted.

I don't know about anyone else here, but I interpret that as meaning they want to exclude IDPA type handguns (ie: 1911s), from the target bill.

Thanks Rob and Scrivener.

+1

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I don't know about anyone else here, but I interpret that as meaning they want to exclude IDPA type handguns (ie: 1911s), from the target bill.
+1

There are 1911s with no other uses, specifically those made with very light trigger pulls.

Actually though, the AGs office probably wishes to exclude as much as possible.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I must have been a moron (perhaps as usual). I was expecting that this listing of "target" and "competition" pistols would allow them to bypass the AG's regulations (several of which are completely beyond my capacity to comprehend). Obviously, I was incorrect.

And now, I don't exactly know the purpose of the Target regulations. They could list anything and everything, yet the pistols would still be subject to the AG's unilateral interpretation of a proper handgun?

The jury is still out on this one. The AG's regulations are 940 CMR 16.00, and apply only to "handgun purveyors". The definitions under section 940 CMR 16.01 states that "...However, handgun-purveyor shall not include any of the aforementioned if: ... (f) the transfer in question is of handguns that are solely designed and sold specifically for formal target shooting competition."

Once the "target roster" is created, it will represent a formal finding by the Executive Office of Public Safety that a gun is indeed sole designed and sold specifically for formal target shooting competition.

If the AG's office were to claim that the list does not establish that it exempt under this situation, it would place the state in the position of arguing with itself. It is for this reason that I was rather puzzled by the assistant AG asking that a statement that "inclusion on this list does not necessarily mean compliant with the AG's regulations" when those regulations would represent a finding that the guns meet criteria established in AG regulations for an exemption.

I obviously cannot predict with certainty how the upcoming target roster and the AG's list will interplay, however, the best that I could do at this point was to make sure our sport was represented in the hearing. If it weren't for Jim Wallace, Myself and the Scriv, the only testimony presented at the hearing would have been the statement from the AG's office.

 

[ArmedMainer]

Thanks Rob and Scrivener.

 

[matt]

Thanks Rob and Scrivener.

Amen to that!

 

[Lugnut]

Thanks to everyone that was in attendance!! My affinity towards SVI as just gone to new levels. I hope things work out... I'm looking forward to any progress at this point.

I am puzzled a as to why Glock was there but that's great nonetheless.


Thanks again!!

 

[Len-2A Training]

I wonder if they will actually read and consider the written testimony . . . or only that of the Brady/Reilly Bunch?

I submitted written testimony and chose not to attend the hearing. Although I addressed numerous issues, including some "procedural issues", I did not want to be questioned on my "testimony" since I am not a target shooter and some of what I wrote "just seemed right" and I have no basis in fact to back it up (unlike Rob). [I will admit that I did get a little help in some of my thoughts from one of the gun manufacturers however as I ran my thoughts by them for a "sanity check". ]

 

[Joe R.]

If the AG's office were to claim that the list does not establish that it exempt under this situation, it would place the state in the position of arguing with itself. It is for this reason that I was rather puzzled by the assistant AG asking that a statement that "inclusion on this list does not necessarily mean compliant with the AG's regulations" when those regulations would represent a finding that the guns meet criteria established in AG regulations for an exemption.

( Maxwell Smart voice ) " The old " Inclusion on the the list does not necessarily does not mean compliance " trick! "

This and the wording on HR. 1022 stating : "A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event." are starting to make my head hurt. This is stuff that you would hear from a 10 year old kids trying to figure out the rules for the backyard game they're gonna do.

A person that is gonna spend the money on a dedicated target pistol is probably not someone that the police will have to drag in as a felon. That doesn't matter to people wanting guns out of the hands of citizens. Funny, they do have a basis on what could be considered shooting sports to start with... the Olympics. Pray that they don't find that one out...

Good job Scrievner and Rob Boudrie for going to this to see what is going on.

Joe R.

 

[Scrivener]

Funny, they do have a basis on what could be considered shooting sports to start with... the Olympics. Pray that they don't find that one out...

Which is EXACTLY where this did start. As the number of Olympic shooters in this state who would benefit from the original bill could be counted on one's thumbs, work began to make the bill more inclusive, instead of "boutique relief."

Submitting a letter which consists merely of "some of what I wrote "just seemed right" and I have no basis in fact to back it up" is a very poor policy.

 

[Adam_MA]

I am puzzled a as to why Glock was there but that's great nonetheless.

Glock makes guns designed specifically for competition.

 

[matt1956]

I guess this answers the question of how Martha feels about the AG regs. Bummer...
Thanks for the update, Rob.

[sad2] no big effing suprise there.

bitch...

 

[gonzoga51]

Thanks to Rob and Scrivener.

Does anyone know what the next step in this process is and are there any time frames that dictate when it must be completed or when the criteria must be set and a Target List formally published or does this proces move at the speed of goverment...........?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

There is no set timetable, however, the "public comment period" ends at the close of business today, after which we wait for the EOPS to publish the regulations. Once that's done, the appropriate parties can apply (limited to manufacturers under the current draft; I suggested adding dealers to the list of those entitled to apply) and we start waiting for the list to be published.

I do not know if the EOPS will be evaluating applications directly, or passing them on to the GCAB for an advisory opinion. If the GCAB is in the loop (likely) we will have to wait for GCAB review, and then EOPS action.

 

[benster]

Pardon my ignorance, but how does one find out about these hearings? Are they open to the public? I work down the street and would have loved to gone attend, as an observer, even for a short amount of time. Are these "hearings" dates and times posted somewhere?

 

[Len-2A Training]

Which is EXACTLY where this did start. As the number of Olympic shooters in this state who would benefit from the original bill could be counted on one's thumbs, work began to make the bill more inclusive, instead of "boutique relief."

Submitting a letter which consists merely of "some of what I wrote "just seemed right" and I have no basis in fact to back it up" is a very poor policy.

Well, no doubt the proposed CMR shows your fingerprints.

As written, it would ONLY INCLUDE shooting sports recognized by a "NATIONAL" organization. I suggested that they add "OR INTERNATIONAL" to that.

Some of the other things I suggested:

- If BATFE already recognized a particular feature for a particular firearm as being "target" quality, it should be prima fascia evidence of same and accepted by the State as such!

- Procedural: As written if the list is published and a new gun is approved a week later, it can't be sold until a new list is published SIX MONTHS LATER! I suggested that they update their Web-based List within 5 business days of approval and accept the web-based List as the "List of record" for legal sales, while still publishing a copy in the newspapers every six months (very expensive according to Ron Glidden, the papers charge them commercial rates).

- Procedural: Written certification letter from EOPS should be adequate legal approval to ship to distributors and dealers in MA for sales. Copy of letter should be shipped with product shipment to distributors and ultimately to the MA dealer and be evidence of compliance in advance of any published List. [When I worked for the late DEC, this was a concept we "sold" to Underwriters Laboratories, Canadian Standards Association and TÜV Rheinland to expedite sales of products. No reason MA can't adopt the same concept.]

The areas I couldn't "justify" if questioned (as I am NOT a target shooter):

- Suggested changing revolver barrel length from proposed SIX inches to FIVE inches AND including the cylinder length in that measurement for that purpose. What I wrote for justification was that the equivalent chamber length is considered part of the "barrel" dimension for semi-autos and should (for this purpose) be given the same treatment for revolvers. Don't know if this will help cowboy shooters or not in any way or anyone else, but it certainly wouldn't hurt!

- Suggested that trigger pull weight be changed from proposed FOUR pounds to FIVE pounds or less. Just seemed right, but I couldn't provide any target shooting justification for this if asked.

Sometimes it is smarter to NOT allow yourself to be cross-examined and expose yourself such that you could end up putting your foot in your mouth unintentionally or supply your enemy with info that could be used against you (which I heard may have happened wrt some comments you made at the hearing, where it was reported to me that the AG's reps seemed to express an "oh really?" type of interest in what was said). Thus, letting written testimony stand may be a wiser move and in this case it was a conscious choice I made.

So regardless of whether they accept or reject anything I stated (in writing), I doubt that it will hurt the cause (I try to look out for ALL gun owners, not just a narrow area of personal interest). Everything I suggested was bounced off a major retailer here in MA and/or a major gun manufacturer for a "sanity check" before I submitted my letter to EOPS.

I realize that you think I'm the Village Idiot for submitting comments without the "Scrivener Stamp of Approval" first, but I'll let my comments above stand against your pompous response . . . and let the readers of NES decide!

 

[Supermoto]

There is no set timetable, however, the "public comment period" ends at the close of business today, after which we wait for the EOPS to publish the regulations. Once that's done, the appropriate parties can apply (limited to manufacturers under the current draft; I suggested adding dealers to the list of those entitled to apply) and we start waiting for the list to be published.

I do not know if the EOPS will be evaluating applications directly, or passing them on to the GCAB for an advisory opinion. If the GCAB is in the loop (likely) we will have to wait for GCAB review, and then EOPS action.

Thanks to all that are working this

How do we make sure that the manufactures know how to apply and what to do? How do insure that the guns we want will be on the list... ie... I really want a EAA witness gold team

 

[Marcus in the Darkus]

Hey, guys, shouldn't we all be on the same side here?

Scriv, LenS has repeatedly stated that he aint no lawyer, but IMO his knowledge and understanding of Mass gun laws is equal to that of any other NES member. Why the need to put down his efforts in this matter?

 

[Admin]

Hey, guys, shouldn't we all be on the same side here?

+1 Can we please stop beating our chests here...

 

[Scrivener]

As written, it would ONLY INCLUDE shooting sports recognized by a "NATIONAL" organization. I suggested that they add "OR INTERNATIONAL" to that.

And what international shooting entity does NOT have a national affiliate? And before you say, "the Olympics," the GCAB immediately went to the USOC website to begin its preparations.

The areas I couldn't "justify" if questioned (as I am NOT a target shooter):

- Suggested changing revolver barrel length from proposed SIX inches to FIVE inches AND including the cylinder length in that measurement for that purpose. What I wrote for justification was that the equivalent chamber length is considered part of the "barrel" dimension for semi-autos and should (for this purpose) be given the same treatment for revolvers. Don't know if this will help cowboy shooters or not in any way or anyone else, but it certainly wouldn't hurt!

As the SA revolvers SASS uses were ALREADY excluded, as already discussed at length (ask C-Pher), no; it won't help at all. The OTHER reason is that Mass. law already defines how revolver barrels are measured.

-

Suggested that trigger pull weight be changed from proposed FOUR pounds to FIVE pounds or less. Just seemed right, but I couldn't provide any target shooting justification for this if asked.

Because Glocks come with a 5# trigger, perhaps?

Sometimes it is smarter to NOT allow yourself to be cross-examined and expose yourself such that you could end up putting your foot in your mouth unintentionally or supply your enemy with info that could be used against you (which I heard may have happened wrt some comments you made at the hearing, where it was reported to me that the AG's reps seemed to express an "oh really?" type of interest in what was said). Thus, letting written testimony stand may be a wiser move and in this case it was a conscious choice I made.

WHAT "cross-examination?" There was none.

As the remarks you refer to regarded an action taken a HALF-DECADE ago, "the AG's reps" can go "oh really" all they want. There is little the AG can do at this late date.

I realize that you think I'm the Village Idiot for submitting comments without the "Scrivener Stamp of Approval" first, but I'll let my comments above stand against your pompous response . . . and let the readers of NES decide!

Making written submissions to a state agency on a subject about which, as you already admitted, you have no evidence is palpable foolish. Because there was no "cross examination" and because there was documentation for assertions by the others presenting information favorable to shooters, there will probably be no repercussions.

The ball is now in EOPS' court.

 

[Len-2A Training]

National v. International:

- I do NOT care! I want to leave it as WIDE OPEN as possible. Who knows what new sport will come along some years from now (I can't predict the future) . . . it might not have a National counterpart (yet). My view is trying to be broader rather than narrow (what we know right now).

Barrel length:

- My intent was "fairness" and to get them thinking! If the chamber counts on semi-autos (pistols) why not count the cylinder on revolvers. I already knew it likely wouldn't help the cowboy shooters NOW . . . but maybe at some later time another bill could try to expand things to add more features that could help them later. Why preclude that effort?

- I do not know if any other sport uses revolvers, but again wanted to "broaden" the list of acceptable features.

Trigger pull weight:

- I did not consult with Glock on the number. I recognize that in "free states" ~5.5# seems to be the lower end of "service pistol" trigger pull weights. Thus I suggested something just below this.

- When I mentioned it to a bullseye shooter last night after the BR&P meeting, he suggested to me that the number should be "less then 2.5#"! I gave him a strange look!! Again, I wanted to broaden the options, not narrow them.

Cross-examination:

- They can ask anyone present questions to justify what they suggest. This can sometimes lead to people saying more than they should and open up a can of worms unintentionally. Thus, some of us are wiser and want to foreclose that opportunity.

- Everyone who knows me knows that I like to talk . . . a lot! There are times when this isn't wise to do, especially when in the presence of your enemies (AG's office).

As the remarks you refer to regarded an action taken a HALF-DECADE ago, "the AG's reps" can go "oh really" all they want. There is little the AG can do at this late date.

I can NOT believe that you are naive enough to really believe what you wrote above! The AG's office can indeed threaten anyone (with legal action) at any time for any reason (suddenly they disagree with something)! Ask Glock if you doubt me! Just the threat of legal action/fines has been enough to get most every company so threatened to shutdown sales in MA. Why risk it? How does doing so benefit the shooters or the manufacturers?

End Result:

- The law requires that they hold a public hearing.

- The law requires that they allow a public comments period and accept written testimony.

- The law does NOT require that the modify their stance based on any of the public input that they get.

- My cynical side tells me that they will do or not do what they please and that what goes on "in the back room" has more to do with the end result than the dog-and-pony show you attended or I contributed to!

 

[Scrivener]

I can NOT believe that you are naive enough to really believe what you wrote above! The AG's office can indeed threaten anyone (with legal action) at any time for any reason (suddenly they disagree with something)! Ask Glock if you doubt me! Just the threat of legal action/fines has been enough to get most every company so threatened to shutdown sales in MA. Why risk it? How does doing so benefit the shooters or the manufacturers?

While expressing your legal expertise, go look up "estoppel."

 

[Len-2A Training]

While expressing your legal expertise, go look up "estoppel."

From Wikipedia:

Estoppel is a doctrine in common law jurisdictions recognised both at law and in equity in various forms. In general it protects a party who would suffer detriment if:

The defendant has done or said something to induce an expectation
The plaintiff relied (reasonably) on the expectation...
...and would suffer detriment if that expectation were false.
Unconscionability by the defendant has been recognised as another element by courts, in an attempt to unify the many individual rules of estoppel. In most cases, it is only a defense that prevents a plaintiff from enforcing legal rights, or from relying on a set of facts that would give rise to enforceable rights (e.g. words said or actions performed) if that enforcement or reliance would be unfair to the defendant. Because its effect is to defeat generally enforceable legal rights, the scope of the remedy is often limited.

For an example of estoppel, consider the case of a debtor and a creditor. The creditor might unofficially inform the debtor that the debt has been forgiven. Even if the original contract was not terminated, the creditor may be estopped from collecting the debt if he changes his mind later. It would be unfair to allow the creditor to change his mind in light of the unofficial agreement he made with the debtor beforehand. In the same way, a landlord might inform a tenant that rent has been reduced, for example, if there is construction or a lapse in utility services. If the tenant relies on this advice, the landlord could be estopped from collecting rent retroactively.

Estoppel is closely related to the doctrines of waiver, variation, and election and is applied in many areas of law, including insurance, banking, employment, international trade, etc. In English law, the concept of legitimate expectation in the realm of administrative law and judicial review is estoppel's counterpart in public law, although subtle but important differences exist.

This term appears to come from the French estoupail or a variation, which meant "stopper plug", referring to placing a halt on the imbalance of the situation.

I'm not going to argue the fine points of law with you on whether or not the AG stomping on a company years later is LEGAL or NOT!

HOWEVER, I'll contend that what the AG did to companies selling product (ammo, replacement stocks, M1 Clips, items marked with a gun manufacturer's name, pellet guns, knives, etc.) into MA for many years MAY well NOT BE LEGAL. HOWEVER, when you get a CEASE & DESIST ORDER along with an "assessment of fines, at $x,000 per item, MOST all vendors signed a Consent Decree (which I equate to "extortion") and stopped shipping anything to MA.

If tried in a court of law, many of these folks may have won or ended up being forced to change their sales methods (require an 18/21 yo ID, adult signature, LTC copy, etc.) and still able to sell in MA. It was easier for them to "fold 'em" and run with their tails between their legs rather than pay huge legal fees "on principle".

So as a result, I still wouldn't put it past the AG's office to stomp on SVI. Would the AG win or not? That depends on how well Scriv can convince them to spend $xx,000 in legal fees to fight the battle. Most made their choice otherwise.

In essence, Scriv, you are arguing what's legal . . . and I already contend that what the AGs have done for the past 9 years has been ILLEGAL . . . but they have gotten away with it and are likely to continue to do so.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Scriv,

Other than the SVI issue, please educate me?

What else in what I suggested to EOPS could possibly hurt the cause of gun owners and would be better left unsaid (or only stated by the wizened competitive shooter)?

When I first started shooting in 1976, the people who taught me were all bullseye shooters. Almost everyone used either a S&W 41 or a High Standard Victor (I did shoot in the club's pistol league shoots one season - 10 matches). Although I'm sure that neither gun will be approved as a "target gun" by EOPS, I never heard of anyone buying one of these for hunting or self-defense, only target shooting. I also doubt that the trigger pull on them was much below 5# although I've never measured one (someday I'll measure my Victor). You just didn't see Hammerlis and Pardinis being used by bullseye shooters back then (very different today).

 

[Len-2A Training]

Scriv, KNOCK IT OFF!

If you have something constructive to say, say it! Otherwise keep it to yourself.