Effective or excessive? Debate rages over whether gun legislation is useful and fair
By Craig M. Douglas / News Business Writer
Sunday, May 30, 2004
Massachusetts' gun laws and regulations are confusing, contradictory and full of legal loopholes squeezing licensed business owners. They also appear to be ineffective, as the state's gun violence has steadily risen since 1998, when it was heralded for passing the "toughest" firearms laws in the country.
Yet there remains a serious push by lawmakers and other elected officials to maintain the status quo, to uphold the current guidelines without addressing the effects those policies have had on crime, gun-related accidents, and the hundreds of mom-and-pop businesses that sell firearms. The issue alarms the state's legally licensed gun owners and dealers, whose numbers have dropped significantly during what they say is an "assault on their constitutional rights."
Their anxiety will likely worsen before it gets better. Beacon Hill was abuzz Thursday as the Senate debated a new amendment, that would among other things, prohibit gun shops from selling "assault weapons." The move was aimed at tightening the state's existing weapons laws, which allowed dealers and other "gun purveyors" to sell assault weapons manufactured before 1994.
Citing inaction on the part of the Bush administration and the country's "Republican Congress," state Sen. Jarrett Barrios, D-Cambridge, said last month that the amendment would protect the state's gun laws from changes in the federal weapons ban, which is scheduled to expire in September. Barrios, who made the comments during a meeting with News staff, co-authored the new amendment with state Rep. David Linsky, D-Natick.
When the federal law expires, "You'll be able to go out and buy your Uzi at Kmart again," said Barrios, Senate chairman of the Joint Committee on Public Safety.
In Thursday's contentious vote, the Senate established its own definitions for assault weapons, but rejected the proposed sales ban on such guns made prior to 1994. Before it can be enacted, the amendment must be approved by the House and endorsed by Gov. Mitt Romney.
Effectiveness questioned
Statistics provided by the state police and Executive Office of Public Safety raise questions about the clarity and effectiveness of state gun regulations, and whether the commonwealth has benefited since the rules were enacted six years ago. In fact, recent increases in gun violence and a spate of closings among gun dealers indicate the state's attempts to regulate the industry have been misguided, making it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to own weapons while doing little to suppress criminal activity.
According to the Office of Public Safety, assaults with guns rose by 26 percent between 1998 and 2002, the most recent years tracked. Likewise, the number of accidental gunshot wounds jumped by 24 percent during that four-year span, while "other" gun-related injuries (intent unknown) spiked by 41 percent.
More alarming data was provided by the state police's Crime Reporting Unit, which found that gun-related homicides rose by 25 percent between 1998 and 2002. By comparison, assaults using knives and other sharp weapons, which far outnumber injuries from guns, rose by less than 1 percent during the same time frame.
Still, the numbers have done little to sway gun-control advocates, who dismiss the idea that the laws are ineffective. They argue that the current laws, combined with Attorney General Tom Reilly's handgun regulations, will only improve the safety of Massachusetts' streets. "It's a hollow argument. Assault weapons have no legitimate use. Their only purpose is for murdering human beings," said Linsky in a recent interview.
But even the term "assault weapon" stirs controversy in Massachusetts, conjuring different meanings to different parties in the debate. Roughly defined as a semi-automatic weapon capable of holding and accurately discharging large amounts of ammunition (depending on the make and model), assault weapons are frequently blamed for the violence in America's urban areas, and can be linked to some of the country's more high-profile slayings in recent years.
In December 2000, Michael McDermott used an AK-47 to kill seven coworkers at Edgewater Technology Inc. in Wakefield. Similarly, the killers at Columbine High School in Colorado used illegally purchased assault weapons during their April 1999 rampage.
However, gun experts question whether assault weapons are even popular among criminals, and they challenge the notion that the current bans prevent these guns from being legally sold in Massachusetts.
Instead, they say the laws are driven by political grandstanding that offers little protection to the public and plenty of headaches for the licensed gun community.
A double standard?
At Blue Northern Trading Co. in Ayer, owner Tom Lynch points to the AR-15 Bushmaster rifle behind his counter, noting the fact that the gun is ready for sale to a willing buyer. Add a flash suppressor and bayonet mount -- two relatively inexpensive and readily available parts sold through catalogues and the Internet -- and that same gun is categorized as an assault weapon.
The Bushmaster is targeted "because it's black and it looks menacing," said Lynch, a Boston College alumnus, former IBM engineer and Wilfred Brimley lookalike who opened his store 13 years ago.
Surrounded by a rack of rifles and a glass case lined with handguns, Lynch ticked off numerous weapons -- some dating back to the Civil War -- that were made to kill people. Those same guns are legally sold in Massachusetts today.
The hypocrisy, he said, lies in the state's eagerness to ban certain weapons while refusing to review the effects they're having on crime and gun dealers.
"If you're going to infringe on someone's constitutional rights, don't you have a moral obligation to see if it's accomplished anything?" he said. "Were the laws really enacted to decrease lawlessness, or were they granted to get some recognition at the polls?"
Regardless, Lynch and his fellow gun-shop owners claim to be a dying breed, a group of business owners unable to turn a profit due to heavy-handed government regulation. State statistics seem to support those complaints, as the number of licensed gun dealers has dropped by more than 60 percent since 1998, falling from around 950 businesses to 355.
While laws blocking gun sales from one's residence drove a lot of sellers out of business, the closures were also seen among traditional shops. In the last three months, MetroWest lost two of its more prominent gun dealers, with Bay State Arms Co. in Southborough and the Village Gun Shop in Northborough closing their doors. When talking about the subject, local gun advocates list dozens of other closings throughout the state, including several recent liquidations in Framingham, Fitchburg and Worcester.
"Had I known then what it would be like now, I'd have gone into something else," said Richard Callaghan, owner of Callaghan Firearms Sales in Marlborough. "They've removed a lot of the mom-and-pop operations with these new gun-control laws...We'll be phased out in a matter of six or seven years."
Callaghan, like Blue Northern's Lynch, said profitability became a pipe dream after the Legislature's actions in 1998, when it was illegal to own a handgun if convicted of a felony or certain misdemeanors. The laws also forced gun owners to renew their licenses every four years.
Since then, the number of Massachusetts gun licenses has dropped from around 1.5 million to under 300,000 today, according to the Gun Owners Action League, a gun-industry advocate headquartered in Northborough.
Those numbers are disputed, however, as the state has improved its record-keeping since the latest round of gun legislation. As a result, state officials say many of the 1.5 million licenses prior to 1998 may have been inactive.
Addition by subtraction
Gun dealers say there is no doubt that the licensing changes have hurt their customer base. In addition, they are outraged over a list of consumer-protection regulations enforced by Attorney General Reilly, who has pledged to civilly sue gun dealers and manufacturers who sell handguns that fail to meet certain performance and safety requirements.
While stringent for licensed store owners, the laws and regulations offer a variety of exemptions for the sale of handguns and assault weapons among private citizens, target shooters and collectors.
"I don't think it (the laws and regulations) accomplished anything except to harass gun dealers," said Eldon McEliney, owner of McEliney's gun shop in Waltham. "I'm not sad anymore. I'm just annoyed at the persistent stupidity of our Legislature."
Other dealers complain that Reilly's regulations are intentionally vague and, in some instances, contradict the list of guns deemed "legal" by the Firearms Records Bureau, a division within the Office of Public Safety. Attempts to clarify Reilly's regulations have been unsuccessful, they say, leaving them unsure of what they can and cannot sell to licensed buyers.
Last week, the attorney general's office flatly denied those claims and reaffirmed its commitment to protecting the public. As for the gun industry, representatives said recent sales data shows that the number of weapons sold each year has remained relatively unchanged since 1998.
Those statistics, maintained by the Office of Public Safety, were not made available to The Daily News last week.
"There are no current plans to change the A.G.'s regulations. Frankly, we think they're working," said Jesse Caplan, chief of the attorney general's consumer protection and anti-trust division.
The rules have convinced some gun advocates that the state is trying to stop gun violence by trampling over the U.S. Constitution.
"You can see it's a very step-by-step approach to put licensed dealers out of business," said Jim Wallace, legislative director for the Gun Owners Action League in Northborough. "Basically your right to own a firearm will go away. They (the state) can't do it through legislation, so they're going to do it through regulation."
This one is easy to figure out.. Just look at the states that have a CCW in place and compare their crime with those that don't have CCW. Pretty amazing huh
__________________
"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come."
- Joseph Biden
Associated Press 11/18/93
"Be thankful that we're not getting all the government we are paying for." Will Rogers
ORIGINAL: Charlie P
The Constitution doesn't say anything about denying criminals the right to own guns either,should their rights be infringed?
They did their time why shouldn't they bellowed to own a gun?
Charlie, here I think you may be mistaken. I do believe the Constitution permits convicted felons to lose certain Constitutional rights! Not specifically as regards ownership of firearms, but a lot of rights, such as the right to vote, hold office, etc. etc. The loss of specific rights upon conviction is generally a provision of statute law, but is generally held to be constitutional, including the possessing of firearms!
__________________
"Bitte, trinks du das Wasser nicht. Dahin haben die Kuhen gesheissen."
The Constitution doesn't say anything about denying criminals the right to own guns either,should their rights be infringed?
They did their time why shouldn't they bellowed to own a gun?
There was a time that they were. Sometime in the late 19th or early 20th century the same group of lame excuses we have for lawmakers, began to slowly remove all rights we citizens have. It has been done slowly, one logical, public safety minded law at a time and we, the idiots that vote them into office term after term,allow them to get away with it. It's kind of like cooking a Lobster, throw him into a pot of boiling water and he will kick and thrash all over the place, but if you put him into a pot of cold water and turn up the heat so the water gradually boils, he will lay ther and die without a struggle. All of the ever so reasonable laws that have been passed for "Our own good" are slowly boiling us and we are as stupid as the Lobster because we sit for it.
You did your time and paid your price, you should get your rights back.
Right now the government can suspnd your 2nd amdment right for the following:
-getting in aheated argument with your spouse or girlfriend and being arrested for a domestic disturbance- there doesn't need to be any physical altercation, but if the neighbor calls the police someone's gettng arrested- most likely the male.
-having a bogus restraining order filed against you- kiss your guns bye-bye for good.
And in the two above examples, a felony hasn't been commited, nor has anyone done any jail time, except in a domestic dispute arrest.
I have a friend who lost his right to own guns because of a drunk driving incident several years ago. He was lucky to be able to petition a sympathetic judge to get his rights restored recently. He did his time in jail and paid his price.
The unfortunate thing, is that the way violent felons are being plea bargained down by liberal prosecuters in front of liberal judges, it would only be a matter of days before they demand that every one turns in their guns because felons released early continue to kill and rape people.[:@]
__________________
Obamanfreude - 1. taking pleasure from the misfortunes of an Obama supporter as he or she is adversely affected by the policies of their Dear Leader.
Charlie, here I think you may be mistaken. I do believe the Constitution permits convicted felons to lose certain Constitutional rights! Not specifically as regards ownership of firearms, but a lot of rights, such as the right to vote, hold office, etc. etc. The loss of specific rights upon conviction is generally a provision of statute law, but is generally held to be constitutional, including the possessing of firearms!
If applied fairly and evenly, alt of our politicians would be out of a job- of course many of these are the same that want to take our guns.[:@][:@][:@]
__________________
Obamanfreude - 1. taking pleasure from the misfortunes of an Obama supporter as he or she is adversely affected by the policies of their Dear Leader.
It just shows what their true agenda is, and the montra "we're not after your hunting weapons" Is just a lie. If the criminals get their guns this way(which they don't) then you'd think that those 40% of FFLs would have a skyrocket in sales....wouldn't they?
It's an agenda and a feel good law, just like the lobster analogy we're gettin close to the boiling point I think.
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Ben Franklin say something along the lines of "Those who would trade liberty for security, deserve neither and shall recieve less of both"?
gun control -effective or excessive?
