Here's a current list of Healey's follies.
1. She's wasting valuable resources to defend her office from a lawsuit filed by Glock.
Glock is suing because of her "overly broad and politically motivated" efforts. Glock said Healey’s true intention is to “harass an industry that the attorney general finds distasteful and to make political headlines by pursing members of the firearm industry.”
2. She's wasting valuable resources to defend her office from a lawsuit filed by Remington. Remington Arms Co. contends Healey’s investigation is “unreasonable and excessively burdensome” because she is seeking product files from every state and country, even though fewer than 1 percent of the files relate to Massachusetts customers. Because Healey’s office “has provided virtually no information concerning the subject or object of its investigation, one cannot imagine what possible relevance product service files from Hawaii or Manitoba, Canada, could have on the AG’s investigation in Massachusetts,”
3. She's wasting valuable resources to defend her office from a lawsuit filed by the NSSF. “Attorney General Healey and/or her staff have overreached their authority and decided to legislate from her office without the benefit of any public process. Her actions totally disregard 18 years of Massachusetts firearm law, supported by all state regulatory agencies and understood by all concerned, in which firearm retailers have operated. The Attorney General has undermined the legislative and public process by unilaterally declaring products that were legal to be illegal. In doing so, she has endangered the livelihoods of family-owned businesses and made potential felons out of tens of thousands of law-abiding citizens.”
4. She's wasting valuable resources to defend her office from a lawsuit filed by Exxon. Attorney General Maura Healey must defend her probe of Exxon Mobil’s climate-change policy in a Texas courtroom hearing that one prominent analyst says shows a federal judge sees “big-time political motives” in her use of power. The order issued by Judge Ed Kinkeade late last week, could compel a law-enforcement officer to answer a target firm’s questions in a Dallas courtroom deposition Dec. 13. First Amendment attorney Harvey Silverglate said it’s “very rare” for a sitting attorney general to be ordered to court for a deposition.
Anyone else notice a pattern?