Rep. David Linsky has filed his gun control package. He did a lot of listening to get to the point of filing his bill, which does respond to a number of the ideas discussed in this forum. Senator Creem, also a long time gun control advocate, has also filed a full package, as has Governor Patrick.
According to the summaries that they have provided, the two legislators’ packages include several similar elements:
- Provide Local Chiefs of Police with discretion on issuance of an FID Card.
- Require large capacity weapons to be stored at licensed gun clubs
- Increase taxes on guns and ammunition to fund safety and mental health measures.
- Limits gun buyers to one firearm purchase per month.
Additionally, Rep. Linsky’s bill (according to his summary):
- Requires proof of liability insurance for possession of a firearm, rifle or shotgun.
- Requires live shooting as part of the curriculum for a basic firearms safety course; this is not a current requirement.
- Requires all applicants for gun licenses and FID cards to sign a waiver of mental health records for review to be destroyed after decision.
- Brings Massachusetts into compliance with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
- Creates new crimes with enhanced penalties for using a firearm in the commission of a crime.
Additionally, Senator Creem’s package would (according to her summary):
- Increase Penalty and Improve Enforcement of Gun Possession with an Expired License.
- Adjust penalties for individuals who violate prohibition of weapons on school grounds and provides for “right of arrest”.
- Ban the sale and possession of 50 caliber guns.
Click here for a summary of Rep. Linsky’s package and here for the full text of his bill. For Rep. Creem’s summary, click here.
To view a summary of the Governor’s package, click here.
The elements of Governor Patrick’s bill which may not appear in the legislators’ bills are:
- Require background checks at gun shows.
- Limit sales of high-powered ammunition.
I have received a number of emails criticizing Governor Patrick’s bill for changing the definition of a large capacity feeding device to one containing more than seven rounds. In section 6, the bill does, in fact, make a change along these lines, although the drafting is not completely clear. The effects of this provision may not have been fully vetted; it does raise issues. The full text of the bill appears at this link.
The legislative process is just getting started. Nobody is married to all the details of their proposal. There will be public hearings on all three bills before anything moves forward. I intend to cosponsor the bills from the two legislators to indicate my support for action. But I continue to welcome input on the bills and more generally.
Your thoughts?
I like most of these ideas. However, I strongly disagree with one, and I think another doesn’t go far enough.
“Provide Local Chiefs of Police with discretion on issuance of an FID Card.”
I don’t think local chiefs of police should have discretion about issuing FID cards. The weapons one is legally allowed to purchase and own in Massachusetts with an FID card are used in crimes very rarely. The power to deny FID cards would inevitably be abused at times, and because FID card guns are so rarely used in crimes, the cost outweighs the benefit.
“Requires all applicants for gun licenses and FID cards to sign a waiver of mental health records for review to be destroyed after decision.”
Law enforcement authorities should be allowed to review mental health and medical records of gun permit owners, both manually and through automatic cross-checking of computer databases, *at any time while their permit is valid*. If somebody with a gun permit is admitted to a psych ward, the police should have the ability to find that out sooner rather than later.
I think requiring liability insurance for gun owners and requiring live shooting as part of gun safety courses are the most important elements of these packages.
I have a few thoughts I’d also like to add on the matter for comment.
I understand the desire for protecting the citizens of the state. However, we already have a “assault weapon” ban. Massachusetts has served as a model for many situations of gun control, and I think many of the measures are reasonable. I even had to take a marksmanship test to get my LTC in Boston, administered by BPD, to show that I could safely operate a firearm.
Regulations on securing firearms. This. I totally agree, there should be some minimum requirements that prevent both grab-n-go situations, as well as securing them from household members who are not licensed to operate them. I think if one thing could have actually helped prevent Sandy Hook, it would be the proper securing of the firearms, so that the shooter could never have accessed them in the first place.
HOWEVER, requiring them to be stored at a gun club defeats the purpose of having a firearm for home defense does it not? If there is an armed home invasion, I would prefer my options not be crippled to protect myself against said invader.
Training, while it makes sense, is difficult. Unless we could start having programs run by local police (which would be great, mind you), requiring training to obtain a license could be difficult, as not everyone knows an individual with a permit who is capable of training them.
Liability insurance. It sounds like a good idea, however if a person is intent on causing harm, the likelihood they care about insurance damages are not high.
Additional taxes. If not excessive, this could be a reasonable way to curb spending. Tax at the time of purchase seems to make more sense than a yearly one.
“Assault weapons”. Honestly, this one gets old. They are not assault weapons. They are rifles, that use a very common ammunition round. Semi-automatic weapons with detachable magazines are not new. Not to mention, their use in violent crimes are EXTREMELY limited. There has even been further evidence that states a rifle was NOT used at Sandy Hook, and instead 4 separate handguns were used.
Limitations on quantity. So long as they’re properly secured, this should not matter.
Reporting mental health status to authorities. This one is a slippery slope and I hope that you can see that. The minute we tell people that their mental health professionals can breach confidentiality, we risk those individuals not seeking help for that very reason. This is potentially a very dangerous situation.
Databases of guns/owners. This one also makes me a little nervous. The results should most definitely NOT be public. In NY there have already been a couple reported cases of theft or attempted theft associated with the leaking of information relating to gun owners. Probably best to not let criminals know where they can steal guns.
And an addition:
If when the Governor and other state representatives say “high powered” rifles, if they mean .50 cal rifles. I think that makes some sense to regulate those more, but if they consider a .223 of an AR-15 high powered, I think they might need to learn a little more about the types of ammunition used for hunting and home defense.
The liability insurance is my main concern because, quite simply, there’s no pressing need for it. I’m upset that responsible and law-abiding gun owners are going to be further penalized for exercising their 2nd amendment rights.
The people who wish to ban guns should go about it in a constitutional way. We have amended the Constitution before. Increasing the cost of owning a firearm by taxes, liability insurance and bureaucratic hurdles definitely “infringes” on the 2nd amendment and is unconstitutional. Furthermore, are the gun ban advocates saying that criminals will change their ways and no longer acquire illegal arms? How well did the prohibition on alcohol work or drugs? Not so well. The bad guy will always find a way to get arms. All of these restrictions have just made life much easier for criminals as they know their targets are unarmed. I also think it very dangerous to advertise areas as “gun free zones”. This acts as a magnet to these deranged individuals. We should work to educate people about this and create a social taboo on people who feel advertising you are disarmed is socially responsible act. It is not.
We need a discussion on why the founders insisted on a Bill of Rights which contained the right to bear arms. Perhaps we do a little reading on the discussion that took place between Jefferson and Madison on this subject and see if they’re arguments still are valid. If we feel the 2nd amendment is no longer needed and we should fully trust the State with a monopoly on force than repealing the right is more honest argument.
This is a problem if indeed the law is amended to classify any weapon with a capacity of seven or more rounds as “large-capacity,” a change which Sen. Brownsberger seems to think is unlikely to make it into law, and which I do not support.
Absent that change, I do not see this as an issue, because the proposal under discussion is to require only large-capacity weapons to be stored at licensed gun clubs. Nobody needs a truly large-capacity weapon for “home defense.” Indeed, such weapons frankly aren’t even particularly good for that purpose. If you want to defend your home, you use a handgun or a shotgun, not an AR-15.
There are plenty of approved firearms safety courses in Massachusetts. The proposed legislation does not add a requirement for firearms safety training that isn’t already there; rather, it adds live fire as a required part of the training that is already being offered. While requiring live fire as part of these courses may make them more difficult to offer, this is a problem that the free market can solve. Since these courses can be offered by for-profit businesses for a fee, if there is a shortage of available courses, businesses will spring up to offer them.
This comment misses the point of requiring liability insurance for gun owners. It brings the free market to bear on the problem of irresponsible gun ownership. Insurance companies, who obviously have a vested interest in guns they insure not being used to commit crimes, will vet the people applying for policies and adjust their premiums based on the conduct of the owner, and thereby encourage responsible gun ownership.
For example, insurance companies might increase premiums for people who choose to store their guns at home rather than at a gun club; decrease premiums for people who show proof of ownership of a gun safe and attest that their guns are stored in it when not in use; decrease premiums for people who show proof of regular retraining; etc. In short, the point isn’t at all to provide coverage against damages by people “intent on causing harm;” in fact, I suspect that such policies will explicitly deny coverage for damages caused by the gun owner while committing a crime. Rather, the point is to give gun owners a financial incentive to behave responsibly.
Most people’s houses don’t burn down, and yet responsible homeowners buy property insurance. Most people never get into a car accident causing hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages or injury, and yet responsible car owners have automobile insurance which covers such accidents. The reason why insurance works is because the premiums paid by all the people who never end up needing coverage are used to cover the costs of the people who do. Liability insurance for gun owners would be no different.
As for whether there is a need for it, how many gun thefts and suicides do we have to tolerate before there is a “need” to require guns to be stored in safes? As I noted above, liability insurance will encourage gun owners to store their guns safely and securely, and I absolutely think that is something there is a “pressing need for.
There are certain clear-cut characteristics of firearms which don’t make them better for hunting and don’t make them better for self-defense; the only thing those characteristics make those guns better for is killing lots of people. The term “assault weapons” is sometimes used a shorthand for weapons possessing some of those characteristics, and the shorthand may be sloppy, but the laws which restrict such weapons are quite clear on what characteristics are covered, and in my opinion the restrictions are quite reasonable.
This argument attributes rational thought processes to mentally ill people, a class of people pretty much defined by the fact that their thought processes are not rational.
Aside from that, it’s unlikely that someone who is experiencing mental health issues _before_ attempting to obtain a gun permit is going to think to himself, “Hmm, some day I might want to legally own a gun, so I’d better not go see a shrink!”
Finally, one of the main points of this provision is to allow the police to find out people who have received mental health treatment involuntarily, i.e., been committed against their will.
There is a right to bear arms, but there is also a right to public safety and an obligation by the government to protect its citizens. To put it bluntly, I think requiring people who want to own guns to prove that they aren’t crazy is a reasonable trade-off between those two potentially conflicting rights.
I’m really not sure why this was brought up, since I see nothing about building a database of gun owners in Sen. Brownsberger’s summary of the proposed legislation. In any case, the concern raised above has already been addressed, since the Massachusetts Public Records Law explicitly excludes gun ownership records.
By the way, I totally agree that what the newspaper in New York did in publishing the names and addresses of registered gun owners was appalling.
First of all, I don’t see anyone here trying to ban gun ownership.
Second, there are limitations on all of the rights guaranteed to us by the U.S. and Massachusetts constitutions, such as the “time, place, and manner” restrictions on free speech. No right is absolute, and I don’t think the limitations proposed by these laws are excessive, given the dangers that guns pose to others when they are treated irresponsibly.
Third, state and federal courts have ruled on many occasions that limitations and restrictions are not ipso facto unconstitutional, but rather must be balanced against competing rights as I’ve described above. I don’t see anything in the proposed legislation that I think is likely to be ruled unconstitutional.
To clarify a point made in a previous post, as written when filed, both Representative Linsky’s and Senator Creem’s gun control proposals to store and only allow use of “Assault Weapons” or “Large Capacity Weapons” at gun clubs would apply to ALL semiautomatic rifles and ALL semiautomatic handguns that use detachable magazines in the state of Massachusetts. Not just to rifles like the AR-15.
If you read through the bills and apply them to current MA general laws, you get the following deduction:
According to Senator Creem’s Bill:
“No firearms license shall permit the licensee to possess or carry any assault weapon, large-capacity weapon, or large capacity feeding device except while on the premises of a club or facility with an on-site shooting range or gallery with a Class A license issued by the Colonel of the State Police.”
According to Representative Linsky’s Bill:
“Eliminates licenses for large capacity weapons except for gun clubs and target ranges; all such weapons and grandfathered assault weapons must be stored at gun clubs or target ranges”
The current definition of “Large Capacity Weapon” from MA General Law Chapter 140 Section 121 includes the following: “(ii) that is semiautomatic and capable of accepting, or readily modifiable to accept, any detachable large capacity feeding device;”
Since every semiautomatic rifle and every semiautomatic handgun that uses a detachable magazine is “capable of accepting, or readily modifiable to accept, any detachable large capacity feeding device”, a licensed, law-abiding citizen would no longer be able to possess or use ANY semiautomatic rifle or ANY semiautomatic handgun with a detachable magazine in Massachusetts except at a gun club.
That’s regardless of whether it’s used for hunting, target shooting, recreation, or personal protection.
You can find the full text of Chapter 140 Section 121 here: http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section121
NOTE: When reading Massachusetts General Laws, the term “firearm” is the equivalent to the term “handgun” or “pistol”. It does not mean “firearms” in the general sense.
Hi Jonathan,
Although we disagree on this, I appreciate your response and I hope we can continue the dialogue in the spirit of neighborly good faith. I just want to offer a point by point rebuttal so you can see the flip side of the coin on this. For the record, I have no problem with Obama’s executive orders, or anything contained within Gov. Patrick’s proposal. (Also – I’m taking a stab at trying to quote your text, but I can’t find a formatting guide so it might not work. If it doesn’t, can you let me know how to quote? Thanks.)
Yes, but there’s no law in place forcing them to so it’s a poor analogy.
Most people don’t carry “hundreds of thousands of dollars” in coverage. State law mandates minimum coverage amounts so as to protect an injured party’s right to recover damages from the at-fault party. Such inability for gun violence victims to recoup financial damages from the gun owner is NOT a large-scale public policy problem. Intrusive legislation which requires people to purchase a product (thereby providing the insurance companies with a captive customer base) shouldn’t be used unless there is a large-scale problem to address which cannot be addressed by any other more practical means (a la the health insurance mandate. necessary evil).
Per state law, guns must already must be stored in safes or with trigger locks. I don’t mean this to be condescending, but if you’re going to advocate restricting the rights of your friends/neighbors, I think you have an affirmative duty to thoroughly educate yourself on the topic before offering arguments. That being said, I think you’re a very insightful writer and I’m interested to hear what you think about my point of view on the topics you brought up.
Many thoughtful contributions on this thread. Very helpful to me as the process moves forward! I will be coming back to this to review comments as specific proposals gain legislative salience. At this point, there are a lot of ideas in the table, now as proposed bills. Committee work over the next few months will focus the issues more narrowly.
Hi Walter,
You’re correct that I was wrong about the amount of automobile coverage most people buy. The required minimums are indeed not “hundreds of thousands of dollars” as I wrote (personally, my wife and I carry much more than the minimum level of insurance, because we would really rather not end up bankrupt and unable to support our children as a result of a serious car accident). Having said that, the point remains that if we require liability insurance for automobiles, I cannot imagine why we would not also require liability insurance for guns.
In the world of risk analysis and prevention, there is a concept of a “low probability, high impact” event. It is indeed rather unlikely that an individual firearm would be involved in an accident, theft, or what-have-you that would be covered by liability insurance, but the potential impact of such an event, both on the owner of the firearm and the people who suffer harm, is extremely high. Such events are exactly what liability insurance is designed to protect against.
When you say that there is no pressing need for such insurance, I assume what you mean is that the frequency of such events is much lower for firearms than for automobiles (if that’s not what you mean, then please clarify). That may be true, but if so, again, the insurance model already addresses that, because the cost of insurance is linked to the likelihood of the insured event taking place. In short, if these kinds of things really don’t happen that often, then the insurance will be cheap and not an undue burden on gun owners; the free market in insurance policies will see to that.
On the topic of storing guns securely, while it is true that Massachusetts law already requires it, I cannot find any evidence that this requirement is verified or enforced in any way. I’m fairly certain that police do not come to your house when you apply for an FID or CCW to confirm that you have a gun safe, nor do I think you are required to show proof of ownership of one. If I were an insurance company selling liability insurance to gun owners, I would demand proof of safe storage before giving the policyholder a discount for it, just as for example my automobile insurance policy demands to see my T passes before giving me a discount for commuting by public transportation.
In addition, if someone’s guns end up being involved in an event covered by insurance, and an after-the-fact investigation discovers that they were not secured as required by law and the insurance policy, the policy will reject the damages claim, thus giving people a strong incentive to actually use the safe or trigger lock reliably.
In short, the liability insurance requirement adds teeth to the safe storage requirement in Massachusetts law.
Furthermore, because frankly people think with their wallets, requiring liability insurance would force people to think a lot harder about whether they actually need to keep that gun around the house. In other words, requiring liability insurance makes the risk of storing a gun around the house concrete in a way that forces people to think about it consciously and make conscious decisions about whether they are able to take on that risk. I think this is a good thing.
I believe that local authorities have far too much discretion and that all permit applications should be handled on a SHALL ISSUE and ALL LAWFUL PURPOSES basis. I believe that states should share info about individuals who have been adjudicated incompetent or involuntarily confined to a mental institution. I do NOT believe that police should be allowed to go on fishing expeditions through personal mental health files. To that point, I have worked with the DoD on encouraging combat veterans to seek help for PTSD related issues. I have also produced media encouraging college students to seek counseling for depression or anxiety. The cornerstone of therapy is confidentiality, which should only be broken when the therapist sees clear signs that a client is potentially dangerous. The fact that a patient is taking meds for anxiety, depression, PTSD, OCD, or ADHD does not make them dangerous and is NOT grounds for depriving them of second amendment rights. Similarly, physical tests discriminate against the handicapped and elderly. In Boston, applicants for pistol permits limited to target shooting only have to go to the Moon Island police range and demonstrate combat shooting techniques. For a concealed carry permit, this would make sense. But for a target permit? Re storing guns at a gun club: This is a truly asinine idea. Gangsters in the 30s used to get their heavy weaponry e.g. BARs by raiding National Guard Armories. Finally, most gun violence occurs in high crime urban areas. The answer to urban gun crime is aggressive stop and frisk policies.
“This argument attributes rational thought processes to mentally ill people, a class of people pretty much defined by the fact that their thought processes are not rational.” This might be accurate if you define “mentally ill” as psychotic or schizophrenic. The typical person who seeks treatment is the combat vet with PTSD, or a person with a biologically-based condition such as OCD. The problem is that laymen tend to lump them all together.
“Aside from that, it’s unlikely that someone who is experiencing mental health issues _before_ attempting to obtain a gun permit is going to think to himself, “Hmm, some day I might want to legally own a gun, so I’d better not go see a shrink!”” I don’t know why this strikes you as unlikely. I’ve heard active duty military say they won’t get help for mental issues because they’re afraid of losing security clearances or otherwise damaging their career.
“Finally, one of the main points of this provision is to allow the police to find out people who have received mental health treatment involuntarily, i.e., been committed against their will.” This should be the ONLY point of the provision, and can be addressed easily if states share data on involuntary commitments or adjudications with the NICS system, which is something they should be doing right now.
Lets keep the discussion on topic, which is how do we reduce the possibility of mentally ill people getting access to guns. In the Newtown disaster, the son had access to firearms in the home. Shouldn’t we be focusing on how we track and manage the mentally ill? Firearms of any type should not be allowed, locked or not, in a home where a documented mentally ill person is living. It is possible to manage this legally.
This speaks to the core issue of preventing another Newtown. Isn’t that the goal? The discussion seems to be focused on the gun part of the problem, and not removing some of the “civil liberties” of those who are a danger to themselves, let alone others. As a firm supporter of better licensing and security, MA is a role model for the rest of the nation.
Unfortunately, adding insurance requirements simply adds to the cost and bureaucracy of gun ownership. If the current law isn’t being enforced (storage requirements, trigger locks etc), that is a problem for law enforcement. Finding a way to add costs to limit gun ownership is simply circumventing addressing the 2nd amendment in an open and constitutional manner.
It appears that the proposed Linsky and Creem packages target (apologies for the pun) legal gun owners. A few points to consider; Magazines are easy to swap out, so two 10 rounds vs. a 20 is not really an effective control point. In reality a 20 is much more likely to jam, so we have more of an education/political “tag line” here. The term “Assault Rife” is another misnomer, as any semi auto with a detachable magazine has the same capacity/function as the Bushmaster used at Newtown.
On the other side though – everyone should be required, as they are in the City of Boston, to do a live shooting test to get a license. Other good points include waiver of mental health requirement, compliance with NICS, enhanced penalties for crimes committed with firearms, one firearm per month and a ban on 50 cal guns.
Is it possible to keep new gun control proposals focused on actually avoiding another Newton, as opposed to simply banning firearms or increasing costs and paperwork for those wishing to exercise their rights under the 2nd amendment? Whether or not we like it – it is a part of the Constitution.
“everyone should be required, as they are in the City of Boston, to do a live shooting test to get a license.”
So you agree that just to get an LTC limited to “target shooting only” the applicant, upon renewal every five years, should have to score 210/300 on a live fire test that includes shooting one-handed double-action with a Ruger .38 (a combat shooting technique). If you develop arthritis in your right hand at the age of 70, you lose your permit and give up the gun collection you’ve spent a lifetime building. All in the name of preventing another Newtown. Do I understand you correctly?
“Other good points include waiver of mental health requirement,”
What does that mean? Is the all-powerful licensing authority going to equate a biologically-based condition like ADHD with full-blown schizophrenia? If an applicant is disqualified for taking Zoloft, what about the far greater number of people who self medicate with alcohol?
There is no end to this kind of social tinkering. Newtown does not represent an existential threat. More kids were crushed to death by the family television than have been shot to death in classrooms. If you’re worried about the kids, spring for armed guards.
Hi Jonathan,
Thanks again for another intelligent and well thought out response. I understand all your arguments, but I think you and I just simply disagree on this from a bottom line perspective. I feel as though it’s an American’s right to keep guns at home for personal protection, and I don’t think it’s fair or constitutional to penalize them with excessive fees, requirements, etc. as a means of introducing a financial disincentive. If a financial disincentive is a byproduct of an otherwise prudent and sensible requirement (i.e. the accuracy test), then so be it. But I don’t think it should be our goal to harass gun owners to the point where they decide it’s not worth it.
It’s interesting that you bring up the “low probability, high impact” event, because that’s the exact reason why I want guns in my house. Is an event likely to occur in which I’ll have to use them? Almost certainly not. But if it did, it could be very “high impact” indeed, and I strongly resent any encroachment on my ability to protect my family.
I think there needs to be more clarification on Senator Creem’s proposal to ban the sale and possession of 50 caliber guns.
Many muzzleloaders are 50 caliber. Are we really concerned about these? The drafting of the legislation needs to clearly exempt muzzleloaders.
Duly noted.
This post will address many of the points in the three bills filed. I’d appreciate feedback on any or all of my responses
– Provide Local Chiefs of Police with discretion on issuance of an FID Card.
Currently, an “FID” card is one of two possible types of licenses. The “restricted” FID allows a person to buy a chemical defense weapon. Essentially pepper spray. The non restricted FID allows a bearer to own a low capacity rifle or shotgun. This means a gun that holds 10 rounds or less. In practical terms, what most would think of as a typical hunting rifle, shotgun or muzzle loader.
Owning a handgun requires an LTC-A or LTC-B and those are “may issue” and the local chief of police has discretion which allows him or her to deny that LTC because the applicant is found unsuitable. The Heller decision has already found that a person who is not a felon has the right to own a handgun, so already MA is pushing it with regard to constitutionality. If the state says a person can be denied the right to own a low capacity long gun with no due process, I can’t see how that would hold up in court.
– Require large capacity weapons to be stored at licensed gun clubs
I can only imagine that Rep. Linsky has never been to a licensed gun club. None of them have the facilities for this. Further, gun clubs are by necessity well removed from roads and neighbors. Storing large amounts of firearms at such a location would make for an incredibly attractive target for thieves. Does this really solve the problem of keeping guns from getting stolen? Logic says that it would do exactly the opposite.
– Increase taxes on guns and ammunition to fund safety and mental health measures.
There are approximately 200,000 licensed gun owners in MA. Given that, the tax revenue from such a program would be minimal. Also, don’t all citizens have an interest in good mental health programs? Why is it only the responsibility of law abiding gun owners to pay for this? Further, any such law would be a regressive tax on a law abiding person of limited means who wants to buy a gun for personal protection.
– Limits gun buyers to one firearm purchase per month.
I presume the purpose here is to prevent straw purchases.
The commonwealth already registers all guns sold legally as well as any legal transfer of any gun. When a gun is transferred legally, an FA10 form is filed recording the serial number and the two parties involved in the transfer by license (FID or LTC) number. All of these are stored by the Firearms Records Bureau. This *should* be as good a system as possible for tracing a firearm back to the original purchaser if it were done legally. Are there any statistics on how often this has been done and how many straw purchasers were caught? Given that, how would one gun a month prevent straw purchases anymore than the laws we already have?
– Requires proof of liability insurance for possession of a firearm, rifle or shotgun.
Massachusetts has required a license to own a firearm for decades. In 1998, the Gun Control Act made that licensing even more restrictive by creating the current LTC-A, LTC-B and FID hierarchy. Since that time, has there been any incident where liability insurance might have come into play for a properly licensed gun owner? Has Rep. Linsky or anyone else given examples of what type of incidents *might* happen where liability insurance might come into play? Finally, does the insurance industry even offer any product like this? What if this became law and none of them offered the insurance? MA is not a big market for them and there’s little incentive for them to get involved. If they did, the price will likely be a further regressive tax on a law abiding person of limited means. Or, is this the intention here?
– Additionally, Senator Creem’s package would (according to her summary): Increase Penalty and Improve Enforcement of Gun Possession with an Expired License.
Currently, the state is required to process all LTC and FID applications or renewals in 40 days by statute. Also by statute, a licensee is given a 90 day grace period if waiting on a renewal. It seems quite wrong to criminalize those who try to follow the law but are caught by a state that can’t by abide by their own statutes.
– Ban the sale and possession of 50 caliber guns.
Have any .50 caliber guns been used in a crime in MA or any other state? Also, .50 caliber muzzle loading rifles are one of the few types of firearms that are legal for hunting in this state. If a person has already legally purchased one of these, do they have to get rid of it? If so, doesn’t this amount to confiscation?
– Require background checks at gun shows.
In MA, we essentially already have universal background checks whether at a gun show or private sale. The reason is, as I previously mentioned, all gun owners have to be licensed and all sales or transfers are recorded to the FRB via the FA10 form. If a person sells a firearm, that person is required to verify that the purchaser is properly licensed and has to submit the form within 7 days. The holder of an FID or LTC has had a much more thorough background check than the ATF’s NICs system provides. In fact, the holder of one of these licenses is about the most thoroughly background checked person in the state, short of a police officer.
– Limit sales of high-powered ammunition.
Governor Patrick’s legislation does nothing of the sort. If you read the legislation, it doesn’t talk about types of ammunition or who can buy it (an LTC or FID is already required for that and is checked at the point of purchase). He wrote that in the summary and it says “restricts access to high powered ammunition”. Presumably, he’s referring to the part of the legislation that is copied from NY and bans all magazines or clips with a capacity of > 7 rounds. No research has been done to show that this ban would have any effect. Further, it is really a defacto ban on what is the most common class of firearms, the semi auto pistol. The reason it’s a defacto ban is that there are hardly any of them that have 7 round magazines available. In fact, the very hand gun that Dick Heller wanted to register held 9 rounds and the SCOTUS ruled that he could possess it.
I just want to chime in and say thank you Paul. Your post is very well written and insightful. I agree 100%.
Reading through this again — great thread. Thanks so much more the civil and useful dialog. Looking forward to testing whatever comes out of committee against these arguments.
You’re very welcome Jason.
There seems to be an unfortunate lack of knowledge of MA gun control laws and firearms in general, even among state officials (no, not you Will). Hopefully I can help in that regard.
Rep. Linsky’s bill is so out of touch it isn’t funny. Most of the provisions of this bill FAIL to address the real issue…enforcement of the laws we currently have.
As many have stated MA has some of the strictest gun laws on the books. Unfortunately criminals neither abide by them or care about the consequences of being brought to trial and maybe found guilt. It would be nice to see our legal system impose some STRICT MANDATORY sentences with no EARLY parole!!!
Let’s not forget Governor Dukakis who vetoed a bill that would have stopped furloughs for first-degree murderers. That program resulted in the release of convicted murderer “Willie” Horton who committed a rape and assault in Maryland after being furloughed. Why are we looking out for the rights of people like this??? They gave up their rights the minute they decided to not obey the laws the rest of us follow.
We should imposing the Death Penalty in MA for anyone convicted of first-degree murder with a firearm. How about a MANDATORY 25 years for anyone convicted of a violent crime involving a firearm with no early parole.
It’s about time we get SERIOUS and TOUGH on the CRIMINALS and not the LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS!!!
The second amendment was very clear as to its intent… “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.
The most recent four shooting all involved individuals with a diagnosed mental illness. With increases in taxes and spending we still fail to provide the services needed to truly care for these individuals. How many are not supervised and monitored to insure medications are properly taken after being released form a treatment program.
Let’s go after the real problems and not waste time and taxpayers dollars on party agendas and “feel good” legislation that accomplishes nothing.
This article is more about Federal level agencies, but I believe has some merit for our State agencies as well. This would be a gun control measure I could support.
https://www.redding.com/news/2013/feb/11/deroy-murdock-control-governments-guns/
tyranny : an oppressive, harsh, or unjust act.
Will,
There is a series of hearings scheduled for these bills that will happen around the state in the next month or so. You are a cosponsor on some of these bills (the ones submitted by Sen. Creem). So, is it safe to assume you’ll be voting for them if they come up?
Can you tell me how you think these will improve the situation in MA? Pretty much all the provisions in these bills attempt to put leverage on the situation by imposing on LTC and FID holders. Are there any statistics that show properly licensed gun owners in MA as a source or cause of problems (like guns getting to criminals)?
I’d like to hear some real justification here.
Thanks
Hi Paul, I cosponsored the bills to indicate general support for taking action. I’ll look forward to seeing what kind of package actually comes forward and we can focus then on the real pros and cons. We are still early in the process and we need to wait for the various committees involved to do their work and narrow the issues down. Then we can have a focused debate on the particulars.
Will,
Given the laws that exist in MA already cover every detail of gun laws that people in the rest of the country are asking for (licensing, full background checks, etc), what action do *you* think is necessary?
In other words, since it all seems to be covered, why does the legislature feel they must do something?
Given the laws that exist in MA already cover every detail of gun laws that people in the rest of the country are asking for…
Clearly that is not a given, or Will would not have been able to list, above, a long series of bullet points of provisions being proposed that are not currently in Massachusetts law.
I, for one, would be happy to see many of those provisions enacted.
Jonathan,
Will listed the provisions that are in the laws being proposed. These proposals go well beyond what the rest of the country is considering or enacting. MA already has full background checks with no “gun show loophole” as just one example. We also already have an assault weapons ban.
You say you’d be happy to see many of those provisions enacted. Why? What problems would they solve? Examples are appreciated.
I already presented my point of view months ago. The comments are above if you wish to reread them. I’m not going to repeat myself or rehash the same discussion.
Ok. I read them and I’ll concentrate on the insurance provision.
The insurance provision is, essentially, the government working around the 4th amendment by getting a private corporation to do it for them. Is that a good precedent? I don’t think so.
Further, it strikes me that Rep. Linsky is attempting to require gun owners to insure against a liability created by a 3rd party. A person steals a gun, commits a crime and the legal gun owner has now incurred a liability because someone else committed a crime. In reality, the insurance company is going to do their absolute best to not pay and then they’ll cancel insurance after the fact. Is the insurance commission going to oversee this in an impartial way?
To use a possibly tired analogy, what if a person stole a car and committed a further crime with that stolen car (ran it through the window a jewelry store). Should the legal owner of the car be liable?
Finally, are there any examples of guns owned by MA LTC or FID holders showing up in crimes? I’ve asked this question of many knowledgable people and the answers I always got were no.
I should also mention that it’s a backdoor tax on a constitutional right. Essentially a poll tax.
I think that the right time to continue this debate will be when there is a package that has been vetted and reported out by a committee. We will then have a sense of what measures have floated to the top of the action agenda. We can then have a focused discussion about them (and any others which we might want to add in). I’ll definitely be commenting further at that time.