A Special Investigation by Gun Owners' Action League

Speech of Michael D. Yacino

Executive Director of GOAL

Tuesday, January 8, 2002

We have called this press conference today to highlight the abuse of power by a government agency in the creation and implementation of 940 CMR 16.00, the attorney general’s regulations on handguns.

However, this is not just a gun issue. The facts will show that this attack on business was a priority for the previous attorney general and the one now in office.

This is an ethics issue.  We have documents which show how one person’s personal agenda was made law, without supporting facts, and in opposition to the opinions and research of his staff.

This is a business issue. Fueled by internal documents, our report demonstrates the contemptible way in which the office of the Attorney General was allowed to conduct its business.

In the spring of 2000, Gun Owners’ Action League sent a freedom of information act request to the Attorney General’s office. We asked for “...any and all correspondence from members of the public, government employees or any other parties, which led to [the] creation, initial publication, and recent reinstatement” of the regulations.

We won’t bore you with the story of how many visits it took, the games that were played over producing the material nor about the babysitters who stood over us as we reviewed the material. Let’s just say for our FOIA request, we paid nearly $14,000 and reviewed more than 24,000 pages of material.

Given that the entire exercise was couched under “consumer protection regulations,” we expected to find numerous “horror stories” of problems experienced by consumers of these products.

• We did not find any Massachusetts resident or group of persons that asked the Attorney General to create consumer product safety standards for handguns.

• There was no record of consumers being harmed by the current manufacturing standards for guns.

• There was no evidence that any manufacturer failed to live up to their warranty.

• There was no evidence of flawed business practices regarding the manufacture, sale or distribution of handguns.

• Ironically, the regulations as written, now void all firearms warranties issued prior to October 1998.

As early as May 1995, the Attorney General’s office created a secret “gun group” within the Consumer Protection Division whose sole purpose was to work on a theory to find a way to attack gun manufacturers. 

Quote: “the gun group is continuing to work on a theory examining manufacturer liability.”

And another Quote: “the gun group will continue to develop a theory/regulation against a manufacturer.”

Doesn’t anyone else find it ironic that the same office that has recently accused the tobacco lawyers of being “greedy” was just six years ago seeking to attack the gun industry the way the tobacco industry was sued? I quote from a staff memo, “I hope to circulate shortly the initial version of a memo describing the various categories of gun injured citizens to whom the common-wealth could be subrogated and thus in connection with whom the commonwealth might be able to bring a tort suit.”

Once the regulations were openly proposed, members of the Attorney General’s  “Gun Group” dropped all pretense amongst themselves that they were focused on safety. They admitted they were trying to ban certain guns, that they called “Saturday Night Specials.” I should add parenthetically that the staff used that term for months until Mr. Roy Innis of the Congress Of Racial Equality pointed out that the term was racist in origin.

We also found that not all of the members of this conspiring “Gun Group” wholeheartedly supported the regulations. More than one staff member expressed their doubts to the Attorney General. Their doubts were ignored. Just listen to some of the comments from the staff, which are posted behind me.

“aren’t there more forceful and relevant things to be done?” April 1996

“who is s--tting who here? Why don’t we admit this is a publicity stunt?” July 1996

[the regulations are] “…absolutely worthless from a consumer protection and law enforcement perspective.” July 1996

None of the 24,000 pages we examined ever drew a connection between the specifics of the regulations and specifics of the current manufacturing of firearms.  There are over 800 nationally accepted standards for current manufacture of firearms, but those were not incorporated in the regulations.

We also know the data wasn’t there because the staff told us so.

“if we could just nail down some factual support for a ban – beyond general national numbers ginned up by gun control types – it would be a lot easier to swallow and a lot easier to sell.” July 1996

My main concern at this point is that we do not have enough empirical or statistical evidence regarding Saturday Night Specials in Massachusetts…. Right now all Scott will be able to say in defense of a ban is that “these guns are generally thought to maybe be poorly made and are used in a lot of crimes in Massachusetts, we think.” July 1996

 “as part of the gun hearings on the proposed handgun sale regulations, it would be prudent for us to address the issue of whether our melting point and other physical property tests are actually related to safety. …We have been unable to secure any witnesses who would testify on this area at the hearings (or provide us an official opinion in writing). Thus, we still need someone who is willing to say that the strength of the quality and safety of that firearm (and also to indicate that the materials that fail our melting point type tests) are not safe to have in handguns..” October 1996

How can any consumer feel safe in Massachusetts – knowing that any Attorney General now or in the future is free to create regulations on any consumer product without basing them on facts?

The Attorney General’s staff was also worried about what the results of the regulations would be:

“What precedent does this set in terms of exposing other legitimate businesses to excessive regulatory intervention? " July 1996

“Why are we doing this to small businesses?” July 1996

But all of this was hidden from the public -- the doubts, the lack of data, the knowledge that the entire regulations were built upon a tissue of lies.

So now that we have laid out to you how the Attorney General’s staff created a false problem, and then manufactured the solution to that non-existent problem, we come to the problems created by the current attorney general’s office.

It is true that Tom Reilly did nothing to create these regulations. However, he is absolutely at fault for failing to stop what Harshbarger’s staff called ill-conceived regulations.

• If you are a dealer seeking a clarification on what firearms you may sell, you can call his office and will be told to call your lawyer.

• If you are a manufacturer, and ask for clarification on the regulations, you might receive an answer, but it won’t be a straight yes or no.

• If you are a legislator, seeking more information, you will receive no answer at all.

Our original request, you may recall, included copies of correspondence pertaining to the reinstatement of the regulations in April of 2000 under Tom Reilly. Those 24,000 pages contained, to our knowledge, nothing from that time frame. That implies one of two things:

• Either Tom Reilly did not investigate the regulations before defending them in court and reinstating them; or

• His office has failed to comply with our freedom of information act request. 

Which of those is true? Only he and his staff know for sure.

We are aware that the Attorney General has failed to investigate the complaint by consumers, businessmen, and women and legislators about the regulations. The archives of his own office condemn these regulations as based on deception. He is a willing participant in regulatory fraud.

Gun Owners’ Action League calls for an immediate investigation by the state auditor into the taxpayer waste of both the previous Attorney General’s administration and the one presently in power. We have asked the US Attorney General to open an investigation into the ethical and legal improprieties of both. We call upon the legislature to remove the authority delegated to the agency under chapter 93a because clearly both individuals have abused their position and violated the public trust.

At this time of national concern for public safety, the last thing our citizens need is an out of control government watchdog.

I know that when you leave here today, you’ll be contacting the Attorney General. And we predict that he’ll tell you that these regulations were created “for the children” or for safety reasons. No one under 21 can legally buy a handgun, they are not consumers of these products. Don’t let the Attorney General confuse you by talking about how these regulations were designed to reduce crime – that’s not a consumer product safety issue. As I’ve tried to explain to you today, and as our report details, these regulations were simply designed to circumvent the legislative process.

Now I’d like to introduce some of the folks who are with me today to have them explain their concerns about the material we’ve uncovered.

* * * *