Fraudulent Activity at A.G.’s Office?

March 2002

The U.S. Attorney General’s office is concerned about “extensive fraudulent activity” at the Mass. Attorney General’s office concerning the regulations on handguns, according to the Gun Owners’ Action League.

Although most of the media ignored GOAL’s story in January, senior staff at the U.S. Attorney General’s Office in Washington agree there appear to be improprieties, according to GOAL. Their allies at the National Rifle Association met with some of Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft’s investigators to discuss their charges and the documents which they obtained from the state under the Freedom of Information Act.

In addition, they report action on Beacon Hill where Sen. Guy Glodis, Chair of the Committee on Public Safety, has filed legislation that would require legislative oversight before such regulations from the Attorney General could be given the force of law. This has received support from both liberal and conservative legislators concerned about the agency’s abuse of authority.

Also, the state’s Auditor has been asked to review the huge amount of money spent by the agency staff to promulgate regulations aimed at firearms manufacturers. Based on internal memos from the Attorney General’s staff, no substantiation for the new rules was ever provided, they say.

The report from GOAL covered the review of 24,000 pages of material that took 18-months to catalog at a cost to the organization of nearly $15,000 in fees. It was charged these fees for Attorney General staff time and document reproduction. There is still more material the Attorney General is refusing to release which may be prompting both state and federal authorities to ask questions. The regulations can be found at 940 CMR 16.00.

Not Just a Gun Issue

This is not just a gun issue, says Michael D. Yacino, Executive Director of GOAL.

“The facts will show,” says Yacino, “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, in opposition to the opinions and research of his staff.”

In the spring of 2000, Yacino sent a request to the Attorney General for all correspondence which led to the creation of the regulations.

He says that given that the entire exercise was couched under “consumer protection regulations,” he expected to find numerous “horror stories” of problems experienced by consumers of these products. But this did not happen, he says.

• They could 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.

Yacino says that as early as May 1995, the A.G.’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.”

Yacino asks, “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?”

He quotes 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 commonwealth could be subrogated and thus in connection with whom the commonwealth might be able to bring a tort suit.”

He claims that once the regulations were openly proposed, members of the Attorney General’s “Gun Group” dropped all pretenses amongst themselves that they were focused on safety. They admitted they were trying to ban certain guns that they called “Saturday Night Specials.”

Not All Agreed

Not all the members of this conspiring “Gun Group” wholeheartedly supported the regulations, according to Yacino. More than one staff member expressed doubts to the Attorney General. Their doubts were ignored. Some of the staff comments were:

• “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.

Yacino claims that none of the 24,000 pages they 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.

He says they also know the data wasn’t there because the staff says 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 salinger.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.

Are Consumers Safe?

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

He says 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,” says Yacino, “the doubts, the lack of data, the knowledge that the entire regulations were built upon a tissue of lies.”

Reilly Didn’t Create It

It is true that Tom Reilly did nothing to create these regulations, says Yacino. “However, he is absolutely at fault for failing to stop what Harshbarger’s staff called ill-conceived regulations. If you call his office, the following is what you will be told.”

• If you are a dealer seeking a clarification on what firearms you may sell, you can call his office and you 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.

Yacino says their original request included copies of correspondence from Tom Reilly pertaining to the reinstatement of the regulations in April of 2000. Those 24,000 pages contained, to his knowledge, nothing from that time frame. That implies one of two things, he claims:

• 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.

He says he is 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.

He says that the Attorney General’s office will say that the regulations were created “for the children” or for safety reasons.

“But no one under 21 can legally buy a handgun, they are not consumers of these products,” says Yacino. “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. These regulations were simply designed to circumvent the legislative process.”

The 38-page report can be found at www.goal.org