Tuesday, January 8, 2001
Some politicians insist the state cannot afford the income tax rollback and vital services, but
the Attorney General's office has been misusing taxpayer dollars to satisfy an
apparent lust for power and attention.
The historical function of the state AG's office was to enforce laws passed by the Legislature.
Under Scott Harshbarger, and continued under Tom Reilly, it has evolved into something
else, something increasingly alarming and expensive.
First, the AG got his foot into the court's door as a leading plaintiff in the tobacco settlement.
He sued in the guise of seeking "taxpayer reimbursement" for past costs of treating
smoking-related illnesses borne by the state. Massachusetts is now receiving $8.3 billion as
its share of the settlement. In that bait-and-switch scam, not a cent is being
reimbursed to taxpayers who footed the bills for both the initial medical costs and the AG's considerable
legal expenses.
Emboldened by his successful raid on "Big Tobacco" deep pockets
- the cost simply passed
on to (tobacco) consumers - the AG went after Microsoft. Although half the state
attorneys general party to the suit have bowed out after the federal settlement, Reilly hangs on for the
big bucks and notoriety, while taxpayers foot his legal bill. Taxpayers and consumers
again will ultimately pay any costs.
Before stalking the Red Sox as his latest politically-correct victim admitting his legal options
there are limited he went after law-abiding gun-owners of the commonwealth through his
unprecedented attack on firearms manufacturers.
In yet another pretentious extension of his power, the wolf
disguised in the sheep's clothing of "consumer protection" has failed to address just who are the damaged or threatened
consumers, and what redress those consumers of firearms want his office to achieve.
After reviewing GOAL's investigative report, "Regulatory
Fraud A Calculated Deception," we also ask the unanswered internal question first posited by AG communications director,
Ed Cafasso, of the the AG's "Gun Group": "What precedent does this set in terms of
exposing other businesses to excessive regulatory intervention?" Will McDonald's or Joe's
Diner be the next target in Tom Reilly's ambitious sights, as he "protects" the eating public
from fat and sugar?
Mr. Cafasso - a former reporter - no doubt expected the questions he posed to be later thrown
at him by the working media, eg., "Is there any statistical basis for this proposal
regulation in Massachusetts or we [sic] just interested in pursuing feel good 'historic' crap now?"
That this question remains unanswered is itself the answer.
We Massachusetts "government consumers" must rein in the Attorney General's illicit
expansion of power, instead of enabling it through our tax dollars.
Return to top
Regulatory
Fraud:
A Calculated Deception
Against the People of the Commonwealth
by the Gun Owners' Action League
Obtained by GOAL under the Freedom of Information Act
[Excerpt]
Memo from Ed Cafasso, communications director for Attorney General Scott
Harshbarger, to its "Gun Group":
"Some relevant questions regarding this 'proposal,' which apparently has already been
shopped around:
1) "Isn't it true that most accidental kid deaths are the result of careless owners? This
proposal does nothing in that regard. In fact, it appears to blame manufacturers entirely.
How does that fit Scott's consistent theme of individual responsibility?
2) "The argument made by police officers for the past decade is
that they are facing new, high-powered guns on the streets. That is why they have gotten rid of their old six-shot
revolvers. Now we are arguing that Saturday Night Specials are the weapon of choice? How
is that possible? Doesn't that fly in the face of reality?
3) "Is this the best that the AG has to offer? The President of
NAAG [National Association of Attorneys General], with a army of prosecutors and state police at his disposal, is going to
try to fight violent handgun crime with a consumer regulation used against mattress
discounters and careless car dealers? Why isn't he doing something about a coordinated
effort to stop the flow of guns brought up here from states with weaker handgun
laws? Aren't there more forceful and relevant things to be done?
4) "How do we expect this regulation to accomplish anything
given 1) the existing underground supply of Saturday Night Specials; 2) the fact that we don't have the great wall
of China around our state borders? 3) the fact that manufacturers can simply make a new
kind of gun that skirts the regulations?;
4) the fact that criminals will simply obtain other kinds of
more lethal guns that are not covered by the regulations?
5) "How many kids were killed with Saturday night specials in
Massachusetts in the past year, two years, five years? I have yet to see any compelling reason to do this. If there one,
besides the old 'one life is enough argument.' If that's our rationale, why don't we propose
regulations to correct every conceivable situation that could save one life?
6) "How do we expect to enforce this/ will we simply add a 93A
charge to anyone arrested for using a Saturday night special in commission of a crime? Do we have the staff to do it and
do it right? Why would any criminal take this seriously, given the existing criminal laws? Are
we just looking for headlines here?
8) "Is it really an effective use of staff time and resources
to put together a huge media event and pre-brief major dailies just so they can divert attention from the fact that much of
this proposal, or at least the Saturday night special portion, is [Ed]
9) wrong-headed? It's one thing to go nuclear on something like
tobacco, which needs to explained [sic] more than anything, and going nuclear on something because it is flawed.
10) "Doesn't the fact there are this many (and probably more)
legitimate questions about this proposals [sic] serve as a warning of how it will be received, no matter how much spinning
we attempt to do?
11) "What precedent does this set in terms of exposing other
businesses to excessive regulatory intervention?"
Three months later, on July 22, 1996, Ed Cafasso sent another
memo to the AG's "Gun Group":
"Here is a shorter version of the questions I first posed
about this idea on April 24. (For purists, a copy of the original memo is attached). Not a single one of these questions
has been answered, which I assume is an indication that there are no satisfactory answers....
"For the record, I consider the idea of banning Saturday Night Specials to be an incredible
publicity stunt that will not only subject the Attorney General to unnecessary criticism
(and in some cases, derisive laughter) but also prove to be absolutely worthless from a consumer
protection and law enforcement perspective.
"In the meantime, it might be nice if one of you could realistically and satisfactorily answer the
kinds of questions that the Attorney General will be expected to answer once you
make this mistake official."
1) "Why is there absolutely nothing in this proposal that says
anything about gun owner responsibility? Why are we blaming gun manufacturers for accidental deaths that are the
responsibility of careless gun owners? Why are we doing this to small business?
2) "For the past decade, cops have been arguing for more firepower in the face of
high-powered automatics and assault weapons. We spend the last four months trying to pass
an assault weapons bill? Now, we are suddenly claiming that Saturday night specials are
the weapons of choice on the streets. Who is shitting who here? Why don't we admit this is a
publicity stunt?
3) "What reliable statistics do we have on the presence and use
of these handguns in Massachusetts? Who made up the stat about 3 of 5 being submitted for forensic tests? Do
we know how many of these were sold in state last year? where someone was killed
with a Saturday night special? Is there any statistical basis for this proposal regulation in
Massachusetts or we [sic] just interested in pursuing feel good 'historic' crap now?
4) "What about the current supply of these guns? What about the
flow of these guns across state lines? If we can't do anything about those two things, then exactly what will be have
accomplished by this?
5) "How do we expect to enforce this regulation? What will stop
manufacturers from creating a new kind of cheap handgun next year? What's the next gun we will ban?
6) "Is this the best the Attorney General (and NAAG President)
has to offer? Is the threat of a civil suit against gun manufacturer or gun store owner really the best way to fight
street crime? Why has this office done absolutely zero to control the illegal flow of weapons from
states with weaker laws?
7) "What precedent does this set in terms of exposing other
legitimate businesses to excessive regulatory intervention? Why has the Attorney General been absolutely afraid to
meet with gun manufacturers to discuss this idea and what might be accomplished in
partnership?
8) "Why have we not even bothered to meet with the ATF to get
their input on the technical aspects of the serial number issue?
9) "Why was the decision made to ram this ill-conceived idea
through the process - actually circumvent the process - without getting any of these legitimate questions answered?
10) "How would you guys like to be Scott answering these questions at a news conference?"
Return to top
GOAL's investigative report observes: "Unfortunately for
consumers, the media did not respond as the Attorney General's staff had predicted. The only persons to raise these
questions were Gun Owners' Action League, and affiliated dealers. Neither the Attorney
General nor his staff has ever reasonably responded to either party....
"The bottom line is that Mr. Cafasso's assumption is correct. Not a single one of these
questions was ever completely answered, nor was there ever an honest attempt to do
so."
State House News Service
Tuesday, January 8, 2001
STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, JAN. 8, 2002 ... A top aide to Scott Harshbarger said that a
gun ban the former attorney general was pushing was just "an incredible publicity stunt" that
would "prove to be absolutely worthless," but the ban was implemented anyway.
The statements, made in an internal memo released by a gun rights group Tuesday, show
politics trumped reason when the gun ban was put on the books and later upheld by current
Attorney General Thomas Reilly, gun owners said.
The aide to Harshbarger who made the remarks, communications
director Ed Cafasso, says his words were just part of a "vigorous internal debate" about certain gun restrictions that
were considered but ultimately stricken from the final regulations, which drew national
attention.
Cafasso wrote in a 1996 memo that a ban on so-called Saturday Night Specials was "an
incredible publicity stunt that will not only subject the Attorney General to unnecessary
criticism (and, in some cases, derisive laughter), but also prove to be absolutely worthless
from a consumer protection and law enforcement perspective."
The Gun Owners' Action League, a group that lobbies for gun
rights, obtained the internal memos after filing a Freedom of Information Act request and released them Tuesday, saying
Cafasso's remarks show the regulations were driven by political motives and not based on
facts.
"This is not a gun issue," said Michael Yacino, GOAL's executive director. "This is an ethics
issue."
Cafasso, now a private media consultant, scoffs at those claims. "This is exactly the way
policymaking should work," he said Tuesday. "There should be a debate about how to fix a
problem. It's a great glimpse into how things get shaped and formed."
Cafasso said he was criticizing proposals that were later discarded. "The original proposal to
ban Saturday Night Specials touched off a vigorous internal debate, which you're
seeing here," he said Tuesday. "I think it's laughable to take a snapshot of an internal policy debate
and somehow claim that it taints the final result."
In another 1996 memo, Cafasso wrote, "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."
The regulations, finally implemented by Attorney General Reilly in April 2000 after a legal
dispute, drew national attention for their use of consumer protection laws to restrict
the sale of certain handguns.
The rules say new handguns sold in Massachusetts must meet certain safety standards, have
trigger locks, childproofing measures, and tamper-resistant serial numbers. Gun control
advocates say the rules target cheap, unsafe handguns known as Saturday Night Specials.
Gun makers say the rules hurt business, stopping the sale of
some high quality firearms used by sportsmen and target shooters.
Ronald Colburn, chairman and CEO of Savage Sports Corp. a firearms company with a
plant in Westfield, said he used to sell yearly about 700 Strikers, a delicate target-shooting
gun he said has been effectively banned. Now he sells none.
"Zero. We cannot sell them at all," Colburn said.
Yacino says the memos about the regulations send a chilling
message that any product disliked by an attorney general can be restricted without cause. "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?" he said.
A spokeswoman for Attorney General Reilly says the regulations work to protect people.
"Since these regulations took effect, accidental handgun injuries have been greatly
reduced and the sale of junk guns is down sharply," Ann Donlan said. "These don't prevent the sale of
handguns, they just ensure that handguns sold legally meet minimum safety requirements."
Legislative attempts to curb the rule-making powers of the attorney general have failed in
recent years.
Return to top
