Effective or excessive? Debate rages over whether gun legislation is useful and fair

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.

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.

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.

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."

Richard Callaghan, owner of Callaghan Firearm Sales in Marlborough, shows off a recent acquisition -- a working reproduction of an English Brown Bess assault rifle used between 1715 and 1835. (Allan Jung photo)

The debate has nothing to do with useful and fair. It has to do with whether it is contitutional and legal.

It is definitely useful to the whore mongering power grabbers , and leads to this:

What I want to know is this. How can that blowhard sue the firearms industry over safeties and such when he is obviously unfamiliar with firearms in general. For him to make such an assumption, he better be a qualified expert of firearms. Otherwise, he should be sued into the gutter.

Mike

"Their only purpose is for murdering human beings," said Linsky in a recent interview."

Then why do the police have them, if not to murder human beings, Ms. Linskey?

"When the federal law expires, "You'll be able to go out and buy your Uzi at Kmart again," said Barrios..."

Mr. Barrios, K-Mart never sold UZIs even before the Ban. Besides, sir, the semi-auto version of the UZI was little more than a large, heavy pistol.

The 2cnd amendment wasn't contingent on crime statistics. It needs to be reaffirmed. Right now we have laws that are unconstitutional because some people believe US v. Miller certifies that the RKBA is a collective, not individual right. Both pro and anti forces are afraid of the outcome if properly put before SCOTUS.

Here is an interesting perspective: How many laws "govern" the 2nd Amendment? I've heard something like 20,000.

How many laws govern the 1st Amendment? Other than libel and slander and not yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, I don't think there are any.

Wouldn't it be nice if the Second Amendment were treated as simply as the First?

Harvard Law School Professor and eminent lawyer Laurence Tribe, darling of the leftists, recently (1999) surprised many people when he revised his treatise "American Constitutional Law" – a standard text in law schools since 1978 – arguing that the Second Amendment assures Americans the right "to possess and use firearms in defense of themselves and their homes" and therefore concluded that "the federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification."

Tribe posits that it includes an individual right, "admittedly of uncertain scope," to "possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes."

Yet political hacks and flunkys like Attorney General Tom Reilly, none of which were elected on their Constitutional law acumen, think that they have the knowledge and competence to undo a seminal right clearly espoused by the framers of the Constitution.

They certainly are not consulting the accepted authority on Constituional Law, Laurence Tribe.

If individual liberty and limited government mean anything anymore (and I'm not sure they do), then government should not care who carries what as long as they do not do something illegal with it. Seems so simple.

"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...."

It seems to me that this is yet another uneducated or uninformed soul who is representing the rest of us by default. He's arguing for utility in the violation of our civil rights, i.e. that the government be efficient in making us bend over. No thank you - "...shall not be infringed" means exactly that, not "...shall not be infringed unless those infringing can dummy up a report or two (at taxpayer expense) showing that it accomplished the goals of those doing the infringing."

US v Miller needs to be challenged on 2nd Amendment grounds, as well as Commerce Clause grounds.

US v. Miller needs to be thrown out on its ear. The case was heard without a defendant present, and without adequate evidence. The court was actually ready to rule in favor of Miller, depending on whether the shotgun he possessed had military utility. Since there was no one who could testify to those grounds, it was left hanging - and somehow out of that the grabbers interpreted that RKBA is a collective right? Jeez. One more lie that has festered and grown.

US v. Miller needs to be thrown out on its ear. The case was heard without a defendant present, and without adequate evidence. The court was actually ready to rule in favor of Miller, depending on whether the shotgun he possessed had military utility. Since there was no one who could testify to those grounds, it was left hanging - and somehow out of that the grabbers interpreted that RKBA is a collective right? Jeez. One more lie that has festered and grown.

All the government won in U.S. v. Miller was a chance to prove in court that a sawed-off shotgun had no military utility. When they won that chance, they responded by offering the only surviving defendant in the case a plea-bargain for time served.

What should happen is not for Miller to be overturned, but for the actual decision--rather than the syllabus--to be upheld.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.