this case is not about whether the attorney general has authority to probably this or any other regulation this case is not about whether the vote indicator alternative design requirement for pistols so or transferred to massachusetts consumers applies to generation three or generation for the law crystals it certainly does this case is not about whether there was a substantial relationship between the load indicator alternative design requirement any proportionate important government objective such as consumer protection or consumer c and to some extent it's not even really about whether generation to generation for what pistols comply with the manufacturers want to comply with the regulation but are at a loss as to how to do it and the reason for that is because the regulation itself is unconstitutionally vague and the  promulgated this regulation provides no feedback or information as to what does comply you know an allegation that there's a specific request there's a specific application that your client is sale of third and fourth generation walk distills and the justification for that is that he's just pulls a whack with the attorney general calls a vote indicators or in some cases effect of horn indicators so this requirement examined generation three generation for pistols and find that vero vote indicator implementations are essentially no different from many other pistols  so so you're not even asking then how can you say they refused to tell you with you on that statue you know if you can ask the question that was supposed to the attorney general's office was do generation three generation four glock pistol supply was a regulation the response was they do not comply because they walk affect the vote indicators the response states absolutely nothing about what about those quote indicators are it is actually noncompliance but isn't the answer to that the regulation says in as i recall that it must be a plain indication by means of the load words within the definition of lone indicator which happens to also be its compliance standard and those four words are device which plainly indicates now i'll break those down because this is really the crux of the case obviously is not that is not they are the answer has to be that is not plainly indicating that there is a cartridge in the chamber and therefore the focus from the manufacturers is that there should be on well how do you more plainly indicated if you look around at some of the other guns they do more plainly indicated i don't see how this is hard to determine your honor you are absolutely correct and that's actually you have the nail on the head and that is hock indicators are virtually identical to those of several other models of pistols freely sold in massachusetts and are considered at least implicitly compliant with the regulation by the attorney general so this sounds like the operative word there is virtually empty and without getting into any kind of patent issues that c is the way you should focus i'm not so sure your honor and the reason why  virtually identical is because when you look at these things these are not complicated things that were times when i'm what i mean is the clock what indicators are actually very simple devices much like several other pistols in massachusetts however the attorney general has briefed and has actually had oral argument this record indicated of the fact that those other abode indicators that she has not brought in force in actions against those other pistol models approved the attorney general has not brought in force an action based on a claim of noncompliance it seems to me that those cases are are in neutral if the attorney general took the position they're fine but yours isn't you would have an argument as to what does the attorney general possibly mean by plainly indicate that's not what the a g s saying the a g is it seems to me is leaving the other cases in neutral you're not bringing in equal protection claim the a g is saying it isn't plain enough and i would suppose that people who design pistols can look at them and say well what could we do to make it plainer maybe we could use color maybe we could make something stick out from the side a little bit more than it does but i don't see how that translates into victims your honor not affirmatively indicating that the other implementations of indicator that are virtually identical to that of clock are ok the attorney general has reserved for herself the statement that they may not be merchantable in massachusetts so what we have here is exactly argument employer equal to come up with something your honor that something is the issue the williams test of the us view williams test which specifically addresses this vagueness issue discusses the elements of how this comes up and it's not as wholly subjective judgements without statutory definitions or definitions now in context or subtle when the meanings are they the objective of this regulation is to come up in effect with with her own blueprint about how the gun should be designed certainly not your honor what i'm saying is that there should be some  can give me an example of something that is something less than a visual blueprint and something more than the words plainly indicate which would be an example of what you think the attorney general should and who supports the attorney general's proposition says is an equivalent regulation in california and when you put them side by side i actually highlighted the specific language the california language chamber of a handgun and it goes on to say to comply with us regular ration you have to have the lettering of so and so size it has to be plain it has to be on a certain place on the pistol it has to be  plane to an adult user so it's really narrowing down first of all the audience of the of the of the indication it's also in any how that indications to be done when we're talking about hills of the design a requirement of a plane in addition is use is that that's correct your honor but i think you're taking it a step too far and that is asking for specificity we're prominently prominently has the minimum dimension in that case because it is a pistol grip after all it has to be crippled by a human hand in this case we have a device a thing the attorney general has a firing chamber and in a situation like that perhaps you can see that there's a cartridge there perhaps you can depend on lighting conditions it depends on the angle of view how far you're looking at the attorney general's not objected to a  massachusetts general laws there are none within the court of massachusetts regulation in terms of context context is everything here because what we see plainly are we saying from hands from a from accepted and are we saying looking down where does this thing have to be perhaps the attorney general can say it can be here it can be there it can be it has to be minimally this size it has to be minimally this loaded and that's important because the ages purpose and promulgating this regulation is actually to save lives by preventing accidental discharge a firearms now mr contends that the regulation is not specific enough but court has upheld numerous statutes and regulations that require some interpretation and the court has recognized that just because a statute or regulation requires interpretation doesn't render it unconstitutionally vague in fact nearly all statutes and regulations require some interpretation and reasonable breath is acceptable so to give just a few examples you are i student senate case this court upheld the phrases stansell disturbance public nuisance and a significant segment of the neighborhood all phrases that require interpretation similarly in the united states first lockman case the court upheld the phrase specially designed and in providing a definition device which plainly indicates that the attorney general gave manufacturers lax ability in determining how to meet that standard so not all guns are manufactured the same way many guns use different forms of good indicators and if the attorney general were to require a blueprint as justice souter's says that might mean that many guns that are currently available for sale in massachusetts could not meet the standard because of the way that they're manufactured is there a procedure for finding out whether a particular proposed that the patient who satisfactory or time and said no his tools don't satisfy the regulation and the attorney general endeavors to respond to reasonable requests by consumers asking whether certain handgun satisfy the regulations that procedure is authorized by state law there are a lot of chapter thirty eight section eight and in general the attorney general's office tries to respond to reasonable consumer increase as she did in this case and that brings me to my second point here on earth which is that regulation is not vegas applied to god and guns also because the dealers had actual knowledge that talking guns don't comply with the regulation that makes this case indistinguishable from a case in which this court held that when the defendants actually believed that their conduct by a lady at the state department regulation that they could not as certain as applied biggest challenge in the same way the attorney general has  that their firearms comply with a number of standards required by the regulation set of performance requirements like drop firing and a number of other performance requirements as part of that process manufacturers will also say argon has a load indicator and here it is and the attorney general's office reviews that certification and often will agree with the manufacturer and and the gun is available for sale separately  all of that is in every instance were good i believe that happens before guns are sold in the state we don't make those certifications publicly available but because the this case and this is outside the record block that attempted to say that there's a lot indicator on their generation three and four missiles the attorney general just agreed and because there is some disagreement on that the attorney general published a notice to inform all dealers that glock did not comply with the regulation separately any interested party like the dealers in this case can write a letter to the attorney general's office and the regulation but i don't think that's a very large risk because this definition is provides for a notice to persons of ordinary intelligence and certainly to sophisticated business owners like gun dealers of what's required to satisfy the regulation th it would be a lawsuit under tetra ninety three and so the attorneys are as part of that procedure the attorney general is required by law to send a letter to a dealer informing them that they might be violating chapter ninety three by selling a certain pistol at that point the dealer can determine that they're not going to sell the pistol anymore and it can be resolved before the case would actually go to court but is a recall i don't believe so i'm not aware of any appears that they've abandoned the claim but to the extent that they continue to press that claim it feels for a number of reasons that the regulation is presumptively lawful because it's a qualification on the commercial sell arms and also because it imposes  culpability as i've written in the reply brief so the standard at least in this case where a constitutional right fundamental constitutional right is being heard and there's no question has been burned because the consumers in this case cannot purchase firearms in common use qua pistols arguably are by far the most popular pistols in the united states so the constitutional standard in evaluating this regulation should be stricter than for what are purely civil regulations and as the attorney general has mentioned with respect to the flexibility in the in the regulation the question here is who decides the regulation and the authority abundant that i have brought within the briefs is that it is the the dealers themselves the dealer manufacturers and sells or subject to the regulation that are supposed to be able to rob violence and have some sense of consistency and verifiable knowledge constitutional constitutionally how horrible the level of confidence that what they do is not going to subject them to sanction in this case the don't because the very folks ability that the attorney general speaks about is