Skip to comments.

Posted on 10/08/2001 10:00:29 AM PDT by 45Auto

In the days after the terrorist attack on America, quite a few law-abiding Massachusetts citizens realized that it might be a good time to buy a gun for self-defense. They then found out – quite to their surprise – that they could not just walk into a gun dealership and legally purchase a gun.

According to Mike Yacino of the Gun Owners’ Action League of Massachusetts (GOAL), he has heard this story from many dealers around the state. It now takes at least one to several months for a new applicant to satisfy the requirements for obtaining a license. This includes filing paperwork, obtaining written references, taking an accredited course and appearing at the local police station for an interview, fingerprinting and photographing.

Then there’s no guarantee the local police will approve the formal application. If approved, a gun dealer could then sell him a rifle, but would not want to sell a handgun. This is because it’s unclear to everyone in the state which handguns may be sold legally, thanks to recent decrees by the Attorney General.

Once a gun is obtained, transport and storage become confusing issues. Even those with a license to buy a low-capacity rifle or shotgun cannot legally transport the firearm. How did this “back-door gun-ban” come about?

Chapter 180: Death of a Constitutional Right by a Thousand Cuts

The new 1998 law, Chapter 180, is touted as a model for the nation by anti-gun-rights advocates everywhere, including its chief sponsor, State Senator Cheryl Jacques. Our gun laws are the most restrictive, and hardest to decipher, in the country. But supporters of the Second Amendment right “to keep and bear arms” see our Constitutional right being killed by a thousand cuts.

Since 1906, a license has been required to carry firearms. Since 1968, a firearm identification card has been needed to purchase and own firearms. Then in 1998, the Massachusetts legislature rewrote the rules in Ch. 180, establishing new categories based on type of weapon (rifle, shotgun, handgun) and capacity (how much ammunition it could hold in a single loading operation). Also, handguns would have to pass safety tests before being sold in the state (testing that is still underway).

Two basic types of permits now exist: (1) The FID (firearms identification card) is for non large-capacity shotguns and rifles, or large-capacity firearms to be used at a licensed range or club. (A lesser FID is required for possession of ammunition and mace.) (2) The license to carry, for larger capacity shotguns and rifles, plus all handguns, includes a special license (“Class A”) just for handguns.

Information on law-abiding gun-owners is kept in the Criminal History Records Division (in the Executive Office of Public Safety). The local police department “may” approve an application for the ID’s and licenses if the applicant demonstrates he is a “suitable person.” If the police do not give approval, legal review is allowed by law, but a judge could decide not to hear an appeal. The police may also impose restrictions on a license. Such loose language opens the door to future abuses, gun rights advocates argue.

ID’s and licenses carry a fee of $25 and must be renewed every four years. Whenever the owner moves to a different town, he must notify authorities by certified mail within 30 days. If the owner forgets these requirements or is even a few days late, his guns can be confiscated and his renewal denied.

There is still confusion over which guns fit into which category, and what exactly the law means in saying that a firearm must be under the owner’s direct control or locked. (Does each gun need to have a lock, or is a locked cabinet or closet enough?) Rules covering transport of weapons are unclear.

Attorney General’s Goal: Destroy Gun Industry

The legislature’s enactment of Ch. 180 is only part of the challenge to gun-ownership rights in Massachusetts. In addition to the law, regulations have also been decreed by the Attorney General. Former Attorney General Scott Harshbarger decided to “develop a strategy to go after the gun industry” (his words, in a memo found by GOAL). He decided to use the state “consumer protection” law to attack gun manufacturers, gun dealers, and law-abiding citizens wishing to purchase guns. He issued far-reaching regulations, with no action by the state legislature, which current AG Tom Reilly says “have the force of law.” Reilly boasts that 34 other states are looking to Massachusetts’ new regulations as a model. (The gun industry is not subject to federal consumer regulations.)

The regulations were first issued by Harshbarger in 1997, but stalled by a court challenge until April 2000, when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld the AG’s authority. But the gun industry asks how an elected official can restrict the sale of a product protected by Constitutional rights. Under the regulations, a ban is imposed on so-called “cheap” handguns. It requires locking devices and mandates tamper-resistant serial numbers. Semi-automatics must have devices showing whether they are loaded. Dealers have to issue instructions and warnings to buyers. Safety testing is required for each manufacturer. Fines of $5,000 per violation were established. While some of these regulations appear reasonable on the surface, the devil is, of course, in the details.

Intentional Entrapment of Dealers

The most obvious problem is that no one knows which guns comply with these regulations, and no dealer in the state can get the AG to answer the question. Handgun sales have been paralyzed for fear of unwitting violations, which would surely be followed by prosecution. The AG’s office has already harassed several dealers in the state with the apparent intent to intimidate all dealers. About half of the dealers existing in Massachusetts before the regulations are no longer in business.

When Massachusetts News contacted the AG’s office to request a list of compliant handguns, we were referred to the Executive Office of Public Safety, who in turn referred us to the Firearms Records Bureau (part of the Criminal History Systems Board). The director of this office, William Pickett, told us that the Gun Advisory Board (on which he sits) had just completed testing of hundreds of handguns. Its findings were sent to the Secretary of Public Safety, who would “probably issue a list in a month or so” (by mid-October). The newly named Secretary of Public Safety, James Jajuga, co-sponsored Ch. 180.

Even if some list is issued by Jajuga’s office, the Attorney General may still discount it, according to Yacino. The list will be a response to the requirement for testing in the law (Ch.180), not to the AG’s consumer protection regulations. The “stalling tactics” of the past three years will continue, Yacino predicts.

In a conflict between statute and regulations, the statute would normally take precedence, but the AG has said his regulations have the force of law. Gun dealers, while pointing out that laws are passed by legislatures and not decreed by an elected official, do not have the money to challenge him.

GOAL has made a legal challenge to Ch.180. It is pending in the U. S. Court of Appeals, with a decision likely in the next few months. The suit concerns First Amendment and “vagueness” issues in the law. Also, Yacino has said that the AG’s regulations may be challenged as a “conspiracy in restraint of trade.”

Attorney General Not Accountable

One of the harassed dealers, Mark Cohen of Hyannis, went with his attorney to meet with House Speaker Finneran about his unjust treatment, to no avail. Though the AG’s office is acting as a “rogue” agency, the convolutions of State House politics will keep the legislature from acting to check its excesses, says Yacino. At least three state legislators have contacted the AG on behalf of their constituents, trying to clear up this confusion: Senators Glodis and Brewer, and Rep. Straus. They have not received answers to their questions, according to Yacino. Gun manufacturer Ruger Inc.’s attorney sent a detailed letter to the AG, asking which of its handguns are compliant, but never received a response.

Lack of clarity is common to the 1968 federal Gun Control Act, Massachusetts Ch. 180, and the Massachusetts AG’s consumer protection regulations. Gun-rights advocates call this government by intimidation: making citizens afraid to act for fear of arbitrary prosecution. One Massachusetts dealer (who did not want his identity revealed) told Massachusetts News that all dealers are convinced that the AG has purposefully designed his regulations to be confusing, imprecise and vague, as part of a strategy of “intentional entrapment.” Hence, a “back door gun ban” has in fact been achieved.

Other Challenges to Gun Rights

Another layer of this story is the extra-legal assault on gun manufacturers led by Bill Clinton’s Dept. of Housing and Urban Development and other government entities, including the City of Boston. Massachusetts-based Smith & Wesson capitulated in a deal in March 2000, which is still shaking the proponents of the Second Amendment and free enterprise. Following its acceptance of government oversight, S&W has been boycotted by gun dealers and purchasers across the U.S. The company was recently sold in a “fire sale” and is in severe financial distress. (See David Bresnahan, “Smith & Wesson Sold in Fire Sale, www.massnews.com/5151.htm; and Jeff Snyder, “What No One Bothered to Tell You About the Smith & Wesson Settlement,” http://communities.prodigy.net/sportsrec/jeffsnyder.html.)

The assault goes on. In the Massachusetts legislature there are two extremist “gun control” bills pending. H1681 would make public the names and addresses of all legal gun owners in the state. H2021 would require a license-to-carry applicant to prove a “specific and compelling reason to fear injury to his person or property.” (These are only the most flagrant examples.) Is there any hope for change? According to Yacino, state legislators have received so many complaints and requests for help that, at a minimum, they are less eager to enact any new “gun control” laws. When quite a few policemen, who may have a minor infraction on their youthful records, are denied licenses, even the Massachusetts legislature realizes something is amiss.

A Constitutional Right and a Moral Obligation

Gun-rights advocates point out that it is our moral obligation to protect ourselves, our families, and by natural extension our communities. Massachusetts law confirms the citizen’s right to fire a weapon “in defense of life and property.” Even Harvard law professor Lawrence Tribe agrees that the Second Amendment protects the individual’s right to firearms. Doesn’t this confirm the unalienable right of a Massachusetts citizen to buy, transport, and possess a firearm in his home or business?

The Second Amendment’s defenders ascribe to it a moral aspect. That is, if one believes that we are a nation specially blessed by our Creator, and that the Founding Fathers were inspired in their writing of the Constitution, then we all must recognize that there are profound reasons for enumerating the right to keep and bear arms. Those who have an aversion to guns, and even gun ownership rights, need to reconsider the question in this light. Perceived weakness, whether of a nation or individual, whether of arms or of will, invites attack by evildoers. Criminals, the only group now able to acquire firearms quickly and easily in Massachusetts, are likely to commit more crimes if they know fewer citizens are defensively armed.

Number of Licensed Gun Owners Declining

Jim Wallace of GOAL tells MassNews that the Firearms Records Bureau has said that (as of July 2001) there are only about 170,000-175,000 licensed gun owners in the state. The Bureau claims that many of the 1.2 million gun owners on their records before 1998 included duplicates, deceased or people who had moved. Even if this 1.2 million figure were halved to account for these errors, Wallace estimates this might mean that quite a few gun owners (maybe 400,000?) have not gotten new FIDs and licenses. He says this is credible, given the very poor job the state did in notifying owners of the new law. It is also possible that the number of gun owners in the state has dropped recently.

Meanwhile, the Boston Globe has reported a 12% increase in the number of criminal weapons seized by the Boston police (in the first half of 2001, compared to the same period in 2000), which seems to be due to increased black market activity. It has been known for years that more “gun control” laws have not reduced criminal violence. Yacino questions where the law-abiding gun owners of Massachusetts are “safer” now with the new law and regulations, or have they just become the undeserving targets of “gun control?” Are those citizens who choose not to prepare for their self-defense more likely to become victims of crime now, because fewer law-abiding citizens are armed? Research (by Lott, Kleck and others) has shown that millions of violent crimes are prevented each year due to responsible gun ownership. Most of the media would lead you to believe the opposite, says Yacino.

Gun Owners Action League, 37 Pierce St., Northboro, MA 01532, 508-393-5333,

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.