Posted on 12/24/2004 11:19:51 PM PST by neverdem
WOBURN, Mass., Dec. 24 - When Massachusetts this month became the first state to install an electronic instant-check system complete with a fingerprint scanner for gun licenses and gun purchases, the impact was quickly apparent.
On Wednesday, for example, moments after a court placed a woman's husband under a restraining order, a notice about the order popped up on a new computer terminal at the police station here. Given that information, the Woburn police went to the man's house and confiscated his guns, all 13 of them.
The computer is part of the record-check system and allows the police and gun stores to learn right away if a person can legally own or buy a firearm. The system provides instant updates on arrest warrants, restraining orders and convictions, and it links fingerprint scanners and computers at gun stores and police departments with a central database.
Under Massachusetts law, anyone wanting to buy a gun must first obtain a license from the local police department. Now, when a person applies for the license or goes to buy a gun, his fingerprints can be checked electronically to verify his identity.
"This is a quantum leap in improving public safety and also making it quicker for people to buy a firearm," said Edward A. Flynn, the Massachusetts secretary of public safety. The new computer system was developed by the state's Criminal History Systems Board, part of Mr. Flynn's office.
Philip Mahoney, the police chief in Woburn, a city of 38,000 people just north of Boston, said the new system was particularly valuable because "we get notified in real time about any new restraining orders, warrants and arrests."
Under the old system, based on paper records maintained at individual police stations and gun shops, Mr. Mahoney said, "we might not be notified at all if someone was put under a restraining order."
In the case this week, Mr. Mahoney said: "We were able to go to the individual's house immediately after the restraining order was issued, which is the most dangerous time for a batterer. It's a time when the victim is probably moving out, and the risk of violence is highest."
The new Massachusetts electronic system is in addition to the federal requirement that a gun buyer undergo an instant background check. That check is completed by telephone before the gun is sold, with a clerk in the gun store calling the F.B.I. or a state police agency.
Many of the same records are searched in both checks, but the national instant background check is not as up to date as the new Massachusetts system, particularly for restraining orders, and does not require fingerprint verification.
Mr. Flynn said his office was working with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to try to consolidate the two checks in Massachusetts.
So far there has been no outcry against the new system from gun owners or the state's gun stores.
"Basically, it's all the same information we had to submit before, so this is not more intrusive," said Carl Ingrao, the owner of Four Seasons Firearms in Woburn. His business is the largest gun store in Massachusetts and was used in a pilot project testing the system beginning last June.
"I haven't had any negative comments from customers whatsoever, and I've sold over 2,000 firearms since the system went into effect," Mr. Ingrao said.
"The computer is actually quicker, more efficient and less expensive for the dealer," he said, because under the old paper system each form cost 50 cents, not including the postage for mailing a copy to the Criminal History Systems Board. Mr. Ingrao says he believes the new system will save him about $2,000 a year.
The electronic system is also faster because once a purchaser's identity is confirmed by the fingerprint scan, the computer automatically fills in the buyer's address, date of birth, height, weight and hair and eye color. That data comes from the gun license application.
"A few months ago, they had to take the system down for a day for a software upgrade, and we had to go back to filling out all the old paperwork," Mr. Ingrao said. "My clerks were saying, 'Hey, the computer is better.' "
Gun owners and the gun industry have often complained that background checks are onerous because they take too much time and prevent people from just walking in and buying a gun when they want to. Mr. Flynn said the new system was an effort to answer that criticism by speeding the process.
By law, police departments in Massachusetts have had 45 days to issue a firearms license. But with the instant check system, the police should be able to issue the license in 24 to 48 hours, Mr. Flynn said, and then a customer with a license will be able to buy a gun in a few minutes.
So far, computer terminals linked to the system have been installed in 159 of the state's 351 police departments and at the four largest gun dealers. The goal is to have them installed in all departments and gun stores by next June, Mr. Flynn said.
A customer at Four Seasons Firearms who collects handguns said he had no objection to the electronic system "because I have nothing to hide."
The customer, who declined to be identified, echoing the concerns of many gun owners about their privacy, added: "The law-abiding gun owners are always put on the defensive when some nut shoots someone. The media makes us out to be the bad guys, but we are just following the law."
How the hell can they take someone's weapons with as little as an unproven restraining order?
I am so glad I will never live in Masschusetts...
Yeah, aren't they just chirping happily about how "convenient" it all is.
You just wait until they - or their grandchildren - have to submit fingerprints to buy drain cleaner, to make sure that they're not on a Government watch list for potential suicides, based on their on-line medical records. They won't be so chirpy and upbeat.
(Hopefully I'm old enough that won't live long enough to see it.)
My God that's out of control. Terrifying to the extreme.
'On Wednesday, for example, moments after a court placed a woman's husband under a restraining order, a notice about the order popped up on a new computer terminal at the police station here. Given that information, the Woburn police went to the man's house and confiscated his guns, all 13 of them'
This is an abuse of his second amendment rights. Restraining orders are not a convicted offense. It's akin to stripping someone of a right because someone else thinks they ought to lose it.
To summarize this article.
"The new intrusive and unconstitutional system we've developed is quicker than the totally retarded and illogical system we've used in the past."
This is like someone telling me that rather than taking a sledgehammer to their brain they took a screwdriver. And since it hurt so much less for them then we all ought to be stabbed in the head by a screwdriver.
Sheesh, someone needs to go tell the Massachusettes AG to go demand 5 dollars from Bernie Getz
It's only legal because the gov't says so. If we don't get our way in these next four years in the courts then we have failed.
More like unintended concenquences.
Put another way, let's say a Police Chief, Mayor, Governor, etc., wanted to finally, absolutely, rid themselves of all those pesky 2nd Ammendment advocates. They take a writ to friendly Left-wing judge, request a "restraining order" claiming some threat against the government official by each and every gun owner. Then these gun owners have two options, i.e. turn in their guns voluntarily, or have them confiscated, and possibly, be prosecuted for illegal gun ownership (i.e. due to the restraining order).
Extreme thinking, a bit, perhaps, but if you follow the logic of the laws of Massacusetts, California, and other states, this logical progression of events can be possible. Possible, of course, because those gun owners have no defined rights to bear arms in those states, i.e. they are "priviledges" plain and simple. The state and local laws are written and enforced with that clear assumption in mind. Regardless of what the U.S. Constitution says, and what you feel about it, you will lose either your guns or your liberty or both, whenever a government official gets around to your number.
The option of citizens in these states is to become an outlaw (again, losing their right to bear arms due to a gun-related felony, i.e. owning guns with a restaining order or other transparent legal device applied against them), meekly give up their rights under the U.S. Constitution, or raise $millions and spend years in court to fight the leftists, who have the power and purse of the state behind them.
Hopeless situation. I know. I live in California, have a registered "assault" weapon, and am undoubtly in violation of one of some 20,000 CA gun laws in one way or another.
SFS
Wasn't that the basis of Emerson case in Texas, but the US Supreme Court sent back to the Texas District court for clarification of some sort?
Mike, that's a Federal law -- the Lautenberg Amendment -- if you have an accusation of domestic abuse, you lose gun rights. Forever.
It's hilarious that they use Woburn, Mass., as an example. At least two Woburn PD officers have beaten their wives or ex-wives, and then the other cops have leaned on the wife to withdraw her complaint. This probably happens everywhere, but I know about it in that one city.
The reason they do this is that even a police officer loses his right to carry or even touch a firearm, and therefore his job. So, the boys tune up the women, it happens, you wouldn't want them to lose their pensions....? They're there to enforce the laws, not obey them.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
Wow. Convenient way for the cops to get their throwdowns.
I will definitely steer clear of Massachusetts.
Some Army Policy on soldiers with this disability (their MOS gets an "L9" code, which I guess means rubber gun squad).
In 2001, the GOA Fought the Ban. The NRA does not appear to have opposed it. The Lautenberg Amendment was attached to legislation that NRA lobbyists wanted, so they let it slide.
I've never raised a hand to a woman, nor even been falsely accused (I am told that lawyers solicit these accusations from their clients as a routine divorce tactic, so the "false charge" is by no means rare), so I don't have a dog in this fight, except that I'm appalled by the way this law plays out in the field.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
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.