kel
March 12, 2006, 11:58 AM
I was going to work today, but my workstation won't boot and I can't access the software repository so I am going to do this instead :-) I don't have the wherewithall to make a coherent argument and it would take weeks of research and many drafts to say what I want to say, so I am just going to throw this out here and leave the rest to you.
As a resident of MA I get to read a large amount of poorly written legislation. The main problem is that the authors don't seem to understand how our legal system is supposed to work in terms of providing clear guidance in application and sentencing.
The "Consumer Protection Regulations" (http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/93a-2.htm) are good example. IANAL but it appears to me that at least in practice he is authorized to regulate commerce within the state at will. The AG can choose to apply the regulations (http://www.ago.state.ma.us/sp.cfm?pageid=1579) differently for each company and product even if they are functionally identical. Glock discovered this when they tried to introduce pistols that complied with the regulations in the same manner as other pistols being sold in the state (Beretta comes to mind). The AG said the guns could not be sold after they had already been introduced and he refused to say whether they were acceptable before introduction. It is incredible that the legislature would hand so much power to a single person even if he is elected.
The pro-gun lobby in MA is pushing similar poorly worded and vague legislation to legalize Single Action revolvers and
(a) any firearm solely designed and sold specifically for formal target shooting competition
Keep in mind the latter exemption already existed in the AGs regs but could not be applied because the AG would fine anyone who tried to sell such a firearm. It seems to me that this law would bring Judicial review into the picture, but would do nothing to stop the AG from applying his regulations to prevent the sale.
What I am trying to get at is that the legal system in Mass is broken and no longer serves it's function. It does not provide fair (equal, predictable) and just (in keeping with the state consitution and spirit of the law) treatment to all the individual subject to the law. The chief of police in each town decides who carries what, when, and how. The AG decides who can sell what, when, and how. I wish the courts could rule that all these things are unconstitutionally vauge as they have in California. That is what the courts are for!
My proposed solution is mandatory education and testing for elected officials. I am not saying we have to force them to act a certain way or write laws a certain way. But we should make sure they understand what they are dealing with and how it supposed to work. Make them understand that if there is room for abuse in the executive branch that it will take place and that it will be a problem.
fin
As a resident of MA I get to read a large amount of poorly written legislation. The main problem is that the authors don't seem to understand how our legal system is supposed to work in terms of providing clear guidance in application and sentencing.
The "Consumer Protection Regulations" (http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/93a-2.htm) are good example. IANAL but it appears to me that at least in practice he is authorized to regulate commerce within the state at will. The AG can choose to apply the regulations (http://www.ago.state.ma.us/sp.cfm?pageid=1579) differently for each company and product even if they are functionally identical. Glock discovered this when they tried to introduce pistols that complied with the regulations in the same manner as other pistols being sold in the state (Beretta comes to mind). The AG said the guns could not be sold after they had already been introduced and he refused to say whether they were acceptable before introduction. It is incredible that the legislature would hand so much power to a single person even if he is elected.
The pro-gun lobby in MA is pushing similar poorly worded and vague legislation to legalize Single Action revolvers and
(a) any firearm solely designed and sold specifically for formal target shooting competition
Keep in mind the latter exemption already existed in the AGs regs but could not be applied because the AG would fine anyone who tried to sell such a firearm. It seems to me that this law would bring Judicial review into the picture, but would do nothing to stop the AG from applying his regulations to prevent the sale.
What I am trying to get at is that the legal system in Mass is broken and no longer serves it's function. It does not provide fair (equal, predictable) and just (in keeping with the state consitution and spirit of the law) treatment to all the individual subject to the law. The chief of police in each town decides who carries what, when, and how. The AG decides who can sell what, when, and how. I wish the courts could rule that all these things are unconstitutionally vauge as they have in California. That is what the courts are for!
My proposed solution is mandatory education and testing for elected officials. I am not saying we have to force them to act a certain way or write laws a certain way. But we should make sure they understand what they are dealing with and how it supposed to work. Make them understand that if there is room for abuse in the executive branch that it will take place and that it will be a problem.
fin