Courthouse News Service:

Gunmaker Remington has asked a judge to halt what it characterized as an unreasonable and unconstitutional demand by the Massachusetts attorney general for its customer information.

Remington Arms Co. filed the petition for injunctive relief on Aug. 29 in Suffolk County Superior Court, saying Attorney General Maura Healey’s civil investigation demand is “excessively burdensome” and tramples the Fourth Amendment rights of the company and its customers.

“The AG’s demand that Remington produce each of the Product Service files without redacting customer identifying information violates the privacy rights of its customers, chills lawful conduct in exercise of the Second Amendment, and substantially interferes with Remington’s business and customer good will,” the petition states.

Remington’s demand comes on the heels of a March 9 civil investigation demand by Healey, seeking a copy of each product service file Remington has for every one of its customers.

Cyndi Roy Gonzalez, a spokeswoman for the Attorney General’s Office, said the demand is part of an investigation into how often Remington’s guns had potentially dangerous defects.

“There are scores of public reports about defects involving firearms, including accidental firing, misfiring, overheating problems and low ‘trigger pull’ leading to horrific stories of accidental shootings by children,” Roy Gonzalez said in an email.

Lack of product-safety oversight in the gun industry makes demands like these critical, the spokeswoman added.

“Many years ago, the gun industry managed to exempt itself from federal consumer product safety oversight, resulting in no public access to consumer complaints about the guns they manufacture,” Roy Gonzalez said. “This lack of transparency is unlike nearly every other consumer product sold in this country. As the chief law enforcement office in Massachusetts, we are seeking that information to better inform our residents and to protect them from any safety or manufacturing issues with guns sold here. It’s unfortunate that these gun manufacturers have taken our office to court rather than comply with a simple request for consumer complaints and related information.”

Here is a test question for readers.  Where in the constitution of her state does it give SJW Healey the right to demand customer information over an investigation into product safety when no laws have been broken?  In case you missed that one, here’s an extra credit question worth 100%.  Where does the constitution of her state give the AG the right to spend taxpayer money to perform studies and inform citizens concerning her opinions on product safety, or to rank products according to her own criteria?

Every reader should have scored 200% on that examination.  It’s a shame that Remington has to petition the court for injunctive relief, rather than gathering some local gun owners, apprehending Maura Healey and using some hemp rope to hang her from the nearest lamp post as an example to other social justice warriors to mind their own damn business.

Prior:

Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey Attacks Gun Manufacturers

Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey’s Crusade Against Guns

The State:

COLUMBIA – S.C. residents will have four chances this fall to weigh in on the state’s gun laws.

A special S.C. Senate committee has scheduled public hearings on “gun issues” for Greenville, Charleston, Hartsville and Columbia. The hearings start Sept. 15.

State Sen. Gerald Malloy, D-Darlington, the committee’s chairman, said the hearings could address a variety of gun-related issues, including expanding the waiting period to buy a firearm, currently three days.

Malloy and another committee member, state Sen. Marlon Kimpson, D-Charleston, unsuccessfully pushed to lengthen that waiting period during the 2016 legislative session. They say that change would give authorities more time to investigate potential red flags found in FBI background checks.

Malloy said he expects to hear plenty from both sides – 2nd Amendment advocates as well as gun-violence victims. Any legislation that can pass the GOP-controlled Legislature must balance the right of responsible residents to own guns and the protection of society from the dangerous and mentally unstable, he said.

Oh, there is a never ending stream of chances to do nefarious things to the rights and liberties of the people.  “Receptive to the issues of fellow South Carolinians” is shorthand for we want a bilateral committee to infringe on the free exercise of rights in the name of cooperation and collegiality.

Resist this temptation, folks.  Just don’t do it.  There shouldn’t be any more gun control laws.  No one elected you to infringe on their God-given rights and liberties, no matter what you were taught by your Marxist college professors.  Don’t try to be the family, church and state all wrapped up into one totem like Molech.  You cannot solve problems of morality by laws.  The state doesn’t have salvific powers.

But here is one bill we need to see come from your pens, as a committee, or individually, or from the pens of someone else in the Senate or House.  We need to see a bill legalizing open carry in South Carolina, like the vast majority of other states.  Reject that awful, racist, communist, Jim Crow legacy and finally bring South Carolina into the twenty first century.

David Codrea gives a rundown of the recent actions by the ATF on the ammunition supply chain.

“ATF was recently asked about the status of nitrocellulose under the Federal explosives laws and regulations,” the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives noted in its… industry newsletter. “‘Nitrocellulose explosive’ is on ATF’s List of Explosive Materials.”

Who did the asking—and what their motives were—was left unsaid.

“ATF has determined that nitrocellulose containing greater than 12.6 percent nitrogen is a high explosive under 27 CFR, Part 555 (nitrocellulose containing 12.6 percent or less nitrogen is generally not an explosive material under Part 555),” the release explained. “Therefore, it must be stored in a type 1 or type 2 magazine.

“We are aware that the US Department of Transportation may assign a nonexplosive classification to nitrocellulose when it has been wetted with water or alcohol,” the advisory acknowledged. “This is based, in part, on the diminished likelihood of explosion in a transportation accident.

“Because the nitrocellulose retains its explosive characteristics when the water or alcohol is removed, the wetted nitrocellulose remains a nitrocellulose explosive, subject to the licensing, safety and security requirements of the Federal explosives regulations,” the post concluded. “However, based upon the diminished likelihood of wetted nitrocellulose exploding, ATF will consider variance requests to store the wetted material under an alternative arrangement.”

David continues with the potential affects of said ruling.

So what’s the impact of ATF coming up with new rules for wetted nitrocellulose?

“Manufacturers and importers of smokeless propellant have relied on ATF private letter rulings issued prior to 2016 stating that nitrocellulose wetted with water not less than 25 percent by mass is not subject to regulation under the federal explosives laws,” the response explained. Their entire operations have been set up “consistent with nitrocellulose not being regulated as an explosive.”

Everything from storage to record-keeping and more would be thrown for a loop. Also impacted would be “contracts to supply smokeless propellant and finished rounds of ammunition to the Department of Defense.”

Read the rest of David’s analysis for some very good questions.  Bob Owens also discussed this.

There were some panicked posts earlier this week in some other firearms-focused sites which claimed the ATF had redefined wetted nitrocellulose as a high explosive, and that this redefinition would dramatically affect the availability and cost of ammunition.

Someone had a question about wetted nitrocellulose, the ATF tried to answer that question in their newsletter, and did so in a manner that drew an unintended and unexpected “the sky is falling!” response.

They’ve now issued an addendum to their newsletter which amounts to, “Dudes, chill.”

There’s a whole lot of snark in Bob’s writeup, and inappropriately so.  I don’t see the post at AllOutdoor.com as a “sky is falling” assessment at all.  The initial ATF answer chose a potential critical path of the logistics chain in the ammunition manufacture process and emplaced an entirely new regulatory scheme on it.  It might have been catastrophic.  The aborted ruling isn’t made up by any writer or commenter.  The ATF said it.  It’s their own words.

As regular readers know, the federal executive is out of control.  The legislature is stocked with demons, pit vipers and gargoyles, and the judiciary has never seen a law or regulation, real or imagined, they didn’t love.  This sounds a lot like something they would promulgate on the gun owning community.

For my part, I think there are a lot of questions that need to be asked.

Why did this come up, and who asked the question?

Who fabricated the response by the ATF, and how far up the chain of command did the approval go?

Wouldn’t something like this be considered rule making and therefore be subject to entry into the federal register, with a comment period and necessary responses, and then codified into the code of federal regulations?

Did the ATF contact and collaborate with the Department of Transportation on this aborted rule making, or did they simply assume that the DOT had no comments and had all the necessary resources to pull off control of this new regulatory scheme?

Did any Department of Justice lawyers evaluate this aborted ruling?

Is there any technical basis whatsoever for the ATF position in the aborted rule making?  Has this been reviewed by a registered professional engineer and is the report he wrote available for public review?  Does the Department of Justice (ATF) have a differing professional opinion (DPO) process like other departments of the federal executive, and is this process available for use by the public like other programs?

Has an economic impact study been performed?

Did anyone in the White House know about this?

This is only the beginning of the questions.  You can safely rely on one thing.  I will greatly increase and enhance the list of questions sent to the federal government if the ATF proposes this as formal rule making.

The reader is invited to fill in the comments with his own questions and observations.

Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey is now known for fabricating gun control laws ex nihilo, just because she wants to, for no other reason than to be a bully.  So is Ms. social justice warrior finished?  Not on your life.  She’s just beginning, at least until someone punches back.

The Boston Globe:

Attorney General Maura Healey has launched a sweeping investigation into possible safety problems involving guns manufactured by at least two major companies, Remington and Glock, according to lawsuits filed by both firms, which are fighting Healey’s efforts.

The lawsuits reveal that this year, Healey invoked her powers under the state’s consumer protection law to demand that both companies turn over a wide range of documents, including safety-related complaints from customers and the companies’ responses.

The investigation is the second prominent battle Healey is waging against the gun industry. In July, she angered gun owners and manufacturers when she moved to bar the sale of military-style rifles that have been altered slightly to evade the state’s ban on assault weapons.

In her newly disclosed legal action, Healey argues Glock firearms are “prone to accidental discharge” and makes clear in court papers that she is concerned the company may have been warned about the problem and failed to act.

Responding to Glock’s lawsuit, she referenced news stories about a sheriff’s deputy accidentally firing a Glock pistol in San Francisco’s Hall of Justice, a Los Angeles police officer who was paralyzed from the waist down after his 3-year-old son accidentally fired his Glock pistol, and a Massachusetts man who was dancing at a July 4th party when his Glock handgun fired while it was in his pocket.

The attorney general said her ban on so-called “copycat” assault weapons is clear, enforceable, and already working.

A Healey spokeswoman said the attorney general is asking gun manufacturers to turn over customer safety complaints because firearms are one of the only products not regulated by the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission.

“As the chief law enforcement office in Massachusetts, we are seeking that information to better inform our residents and to protect them from any safety or manufacturing issues with guns sold here,” Cyndi Roy Gonzalez said. “It’s unfortunate that these gun manufacturers have taken our office to court rather than comply with a simple request for consumer complaints and related information.”

Both Remington and Glock have sued Healey in Suffolk Superior Court, arguing that she is abusing her authority by casting a broad net for documents, including those related to accidental discharges, past lawsuits, legal settlements, and product recalls.

Glock Inc.’s lawsuit asks the court to quash Healey’s inquiry.

The company, based in Smyrna, Ga., points to statements Healey has made calling gun violence a “public health crisis” and an “epidemic” to argue the “true purpose” of her investigation is “to harass an industry that the attorney general finds distasteful and to make political headlines by pursing members of the firearm industry.”

Healey responds in court papers that Glock’s contention that she is politically motivated is “both incorrect and irrelevant,” given the concerns she has about the company’s handguns firing accidentally. She also says the state’s consumer protection law clearly gives her the authority to investigate safety concerns about products, including guns, that are available in Massachusetts.

Glocks can be sold only to law enforcement officers in Massachusetts, because consumer sales are banned under state law. As such, Glock argues, Healey is misusing her investigative powers “for the ulterior purpose of harassing an out-of-state company that does not engage in in-state consumer sales.”

But Healey says that, despite the state’s ban, 10,000 Glocks were sold in Massachusetts between January 2014 and August 2015, including 8,000 to buyers who do not appear to be law-enforcement officers. She said the handguns ended up in the hands of Massachusetts consumers “irrespective of whether the sales were made legally or not.”

“The investigation is appropriate,” Healey’s office writes in its rebuttal to Glock, because Glock may have liability under the state’s consumer protection law for “product defects, misleading marketing, and for failure to honor warranties.”

Remington Arms Co., based in Madison, N.C., contends Healey’s investigation is “unreasonable and excessively burdensome” because she is seeking product files from every state and country, even though fewer than 1 percent of the files relate to Massachusetts customers.

Because Healey’s office “has provided virtually no information concerning the subject or object of its investigation, one cannot imagine what possible relevance product service files from Hawaii or Manitoba, Canada, could have on the AG’s investigation in Massachusetts,” Remington states in its lawsuit, filed Monday.

Remington is asking the court to limit the scope of Healey’s investigation and allow it to remove customer information from the documents it turns over.

If customer information is not removed, the company argues, its customers’ privacy rights would be violated, conduct protected by the Second Amendment would be chilled, and Remington’s business would be harmed.

Healey has not yet responded in court to Remington’s accusations.

Healey’s court papers, however, indicate that Remington and Glock are not the only gun makers she is targeting. Both are “part of a larger series of similar gun safety investigations,” Healey’s office wrote.

Healey, a Democrat who took office last year, has made reducing gun violence a top issue — a crusade that has won her support from national gun-control advocates and the ire of gun owners and gun rights groups.

In December, she warned the state’s 350 licensed gun dealers that they must obey the state’s strict gun laws and began investigating several dealers suspected of selling illegal firearms.

In May, she led a dozen attorneys general in calling on Congress to allow the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to study gun deaths as a public health issue.

A day later, she spoke at a White House gun violence summit, where she decried the legal immunity Congress has granted to gun makers.

“This is the only product of its kind for which Congress has given the industry extensive freedom from liability,” she said at the White House. “That’s not right. The gun industry should be held to the same liability standards as the manufacturers and sellers of other consumer products.”

In July, she drew national attention when she moved to bar sales of so-called copcyat assault rifles that had been modified slightly to evade the state’s 1998 assault weapons ban.

Gun enthusiasts snapped up the rifles in a buying frenzy, and then protested outside the State House.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, meanwhile, said it would challenge Healey’s ban in court, arguing it hurt gun dealers and “made potential felons out of tens of thousands of law-abiding citizens.”

So we are reminded of a number of things in this report.  She (Ms. SJW Healey) is a moron.  “Accidental discharges,” discussed so pointedly here on the pages of this web site, result from people putting their fingers inside the trigger guard and pulling the trigger.  A machine manufacturer, i.e., gun maker, cannot be responsible for people intentionally pulling the trigger and then blaming the gun for discharging a round.  It’s what the machine is designed to do.  It would be like blaming a car for accelerating when you depress the gas pedal.  If it didn’t accelerate, the automobile maker would be responsible for loss of life due to failure of the car to respond to input by the driver.  Similarly, gun makers would be responsible for loss of life if they designed guns that didn’t shoot when the trigger was pulled.  The simple solution to this problem is to teach people not to pull the trigger if you don’t want the gun to shoot.  This was all put in simple terms that the idiot SJW can understand.

Second, she is a bully of the highest order.  She probably shoved other little girls around on the playground, and when she couldn’t do it to the boys, she talked other boys into doing her dirty work for her.  You see, she doesn’t really hate guns.  She wants her Lieutenant bullies to have them.  She just doesn’t want people she doesn’t like to have them.  She isn’t calling for disarming the police, just peaceable men and women who want to protect themselves.  Ms. SJW doesn’t want people to be able to protect themselves.  She wants to be head bully, meaning that people have to come to her for protection.  She is a bitch.

Finally (and there are actually many more lessons from this sad affair), people like this will be bullies until someone punches back, very hard.  If Glock or Remington kowtow to this bitch, they deserve everything they get.  Seriously,  I will have completely lost respect for any company that cooperates with this bully, and I’ll never do business with any of them, ever again.  Gun manufacturers will find that there is a high cost associated with complying this communists like this.  I suspect that the cost will be more than they can bear.

Note to Remington and Glock.  Do not comply.  Tell her to go to hell.  And ditto that for any other gun manufacturer she tries to tackle.