Massachusetts Attorney General Caught in Web of Lies

GOAL ^ | 7/3/02

[pabianice]

In the summer of 1996, Attorney General L. Scott Harshbarger received nationwide media attention when he announced his so-called consumer product safety regulations on firearms. The focus of this report is on uncovering the fraudulent manner in which the Attorney General used “unfair and deceptive” tactics to create 940 CMR 16.00.

After the announcement of these proposed regulations, a public hearing was held in November 1996. This hearing left many individuals with more questions than answers.

· What took place that led the Attorney General to believe that these regulations were needed?

· What credible witnesses provided the Attorney General with information that they or others had been intentionally harmed by a manufacturer’s deceit or unfairness?

· What technical data specific to this issue did the Attorney General have that would support creating the regulations?

· What experts on the manufacturing process related to firearms did he consult?

· Did he seriously consider the effect the regulations would have on the firearms industry?

· Was research done to determine the level at which the industry could comply?

· Did he establish a cooperative system that would both encourage and assist the manufacturers in their effort to comply if indeed changes were needed?

· Was there any data indicating that Massachusetts citizens suffered from injuries or accidents that would be solved by these regulations?

This report will show that prior to the receipt of any technical supportive information, the regulations were put in place in early 1998.

Working on behalf of several firearms manufacturers, the American Shooting Sports Council challenged the new regulations in court. Although a Superior Court initially granted an injunction, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court overturned that decision. Scott Harshbarger’s successor, Attorney General Thomas Reilly, began enforcing the regulations in April of the year 2000 still having answered none of the pertinent questions.

Because proof of need had not been provided to the gun owners, the industry, or the citizens of Massachusetts GOAL decided it was time to review whatever records were available.

In April of the year 2000, Gun Owners’ Action League Executive Director Michael D. Yacino wrote to the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and made a request for all documents under the Freedom of Information Act. The actual request was: “In order to facilitate answering those questions, and to better understand the intent of the regulations, we request copies of any and all correspondence from members of the public, government employees or any other parties, which led to their creation, initial publication, and recent reinstatement.”

As of December 1, 2001 [1], GOAL staff has reviewed 14 boxes containing more than 24,000 pages of material. To view those materials, GOAL paid $12,160.76 in fees to the Attorney General’s office. [2]

In order to obtain actual copies of any of the material, GOAL was required to submit a written request specifying the material we wanted. GOAL was also informed that in addition to the original “research” fees, copies of any documents would cost us an additional $.20 per page. From the beginning it became obvious the exorbitant research fees charged to GOAL were the result of an extremely poor method by which the material was filed. The Attorney General’s office apparently archives material by employee, rather than by case or subject matter. Archived file boxes from individual employees that took part in the firearms issue had to be separately recovered and reviewed by the Attorney General’s staff. Any material thought to be pertinent to GOAL’s FOIA request was held for approval [3] and then copied for our review [4]. For the second and subsequent boxes viewed, each page was given an individual number, beginning with AGO 00001.

Rather than providing GOAL with a concise “Handgun Regulations” file (which apparently does not exist) the GOAL staff was forced to wade through the files of every employee involved in the project. While this method of archiving is understandably practical in storing employees’ historical records, it is not an acceptable method of keeping records on the creation of state regulations. It is abundantly obvious that the average citizen could never afford the cost for reviewing public documents.

Over the course of eighteen months, GOAL would, from time to time, receive notice that the Attorney General’s staff had found more material that matched our request. The notice would also indicate the amount of money GOAL owed for research. Only upon payment of that sum was the GOAL staff allowed to view the material. The GOAL staff was provided with a conference room at the Attorney General’s office, which always included one of his staff. [5]

Our review has left us with many questions.

If these regulations were so badly needed:

· Why couldn’t the Attorney General answer any of the questions surrounding the new regulations?

· Why was it such a task to retrieve the information?

· Why is GOAL being charged to research the research of a regulation already enacted?

The very manner in which these regulations were created and subsequently “sold” to the public was indeed “unfair and deceptive”. By releasing this report GOAL hopes that the current legislative, administrative and judiciary branches of government will feel compelled to review the manner in which the regulations were enacted as well as the overall conduct of the agency.

See link for complete report.

[pabianice]

Coming soon to your state.

When officers of the court give the finger to those of whom they disagree, they are simply bums and crooks.

[muawiyah]

The people of Massachuetts don't deserve to have guns. Not a single one of them can be trusted. Remember, these are the folks who keep putting Teddy "The Chappaquiddick Killer" Kennedy into office.

[Noumenon]

Remember those lessons of the twentieth century. Their Day will come.

[kickstart]

The safety regulations are a crock. Ask any metallurgist. All reliable gunmakers test their designs before production.

As a resident of Springfield, MA, I recently had the "priviledge" of filing a renewal on my "A" license, or license to carry (LTC)firearms (handguns). You have to have a purpose printed on the LTC. By law, they cannot deny you "all lawful purposes", which may and can include conceal carry (CC). However, by law, it is left to the discretion or whim of the police chief to put any restrictions they want on it even though you may be a totally law abiding citizen who meets all the requirements for a CC.

The officer who took my application told me you cannot get "all lawful purposes" in Springfield (which I knew) but he also said there is no CC anywhere in MA with an "A" LTC and "all lawful purposes", which is flat wrong according to the GOAL website. And I personally know in the smaller outlying towns around Springfield, you can get an "all lawful purposes" LTC without any hassles from most of the local police chiefs. However, the law is written gray enough, and on the side of the "lawful authorities" you keep your mouth shut and smile if you can't afford a lawfirm and want to keep what you got for recreation and hunting.

It has taken GOAL six years to get this far, and I don't expect things to loosen up in the near future. Someday, when I have saved enough to retire, I hope to move to an area that has no restictions (if one still exists)for a law abiding citizen.

[Birdman]

isn't harshberger the AG who as prosecutor trumped up the Massachussetts day care charges that Dorothy Rabinowicz writes about in WSJ?

[rellimpank]

--yes--