A few days ago, we learned that the New Jersey Attorney General's office issued a subponea to at least some gun stores in the state for detailed records regarding the sale of Glock handguns, apparently for the purposes of the state's lawsuit against the handgun manufacturer. The AG's office claimed they didn't want names or anything, but the subponea itself told a different story.
Now, News2A, which broke the initial story, has a follow-up. It seems the law firm handling this for the AG's office is taking a much different tone.
It’s not clear if the subpoena campaign was initially more comprehensive, or the AG’s office under a new administration simply bungled the execution and communications, but over the last two days, as scrutiny from gun rights groups has increased, they have provided sporadic updates clarifying the scope and content of the subpoenas, dramatically shifting tone.
Yesterday, News2A obtained a copy of a letter sent by a private law firm conducting the subpoena matters on behalf of the attorney general in this case. This letter, addressed to an FFL, confirms statements from the AG’s office, but also portrays a far more conciliatory approach, likely in response to threatened legal action.
Click here to see a copy of the letter that was sent to FFLs.
With regard to personal information of individual customers, the letter affirms the following:
The Attorney General is not seeking any customer-identifying information, personally identifiable information, or individual customer records. In particular, the Attorney General’s request #1 regarding “all sales” only seeks aggregate information concerning sales and/or transfers of Glock handguns to New Jersey customers in whatever form you maintain or can reasonably provide that information.
The letter notes that the requested information can be provided “in summary or aggregate form.”
Twice the letter states that “The Attorney General is prepared to work cooperatively…” suggesting approaches that would “[limit] burdens” and addressing ways to resolve requests that are “burdensome as written.”
The initial subponea was written in such a way that FFLs claimed it would be incredibly time consuming and expensive to comply, so this is a much different tone entirely.
That's the good news.
The bad news is that, simply put, I don't believe this was ever the intention and this is just them covering their posteriors because they know they'd lose this particular fight.
If you've ever been party to a lawsuit, you might have noticed how attorneys will use discovery to try and gather as much information as possible, including things that are really none of their business. The one time I had to deal with it, there were questions I answered in writting that he simply didn't pass on to the opposing counsel because they didn't need it.
In this case, I think the AG's office wants the names and addresses. They want all of that information and they want it in public records, because they have no respect for gun owner privacy.
But, when the pushback cam, suddenly it seemed unwise to continue along that particular path. This wasn't just a struggle between teams of attorneys, but was public and had the potential to get very ugly.
Sure, right now, most people in New Jersey wouldn't care, but the fight was going to make headlines and that was something they couldn't really afford. As it stands, they likely figure the Glock lawsuit will get decent play because, at least as the media will frame it, it's about machine guns on our streets.
That'll play well with a lot of people, even if it's absolute crap.
But demanding the names of people who bought those guns wouldn't just backfire on the PR front, but would give ammunition to those of us who want to see the paperwork requirements thrown in the shredder.
Either way, I'll take what I can get, and while this is still BS, it's more tolerable BS.
