It seems so trivially obvious as to hardly need repeating, but some (*cough*Scott Brown*cough*) just can’t seem to get it through their thick skulls, so here we go again: guns cross state lines. That’s why a state-by-state approach to gun laws is destined for failure. Here’s today’s Globe with some actual numbers to back up what intuitively is inescapable:
Authorities in Massachusetts, which has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation, recovered 1,737 firearms used in crimes during 2011. Of the 1,020 firearms that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms traced to their state of origin, just 351originated in Massachusetts.
About 250 of the 1,020 guns traced came from nearby states with less restrictive gun laws, including 133 from New Hampshire and 79 from Maine.
Put in percentage terms, guns recovered in Massachusetts crimes originated in-state only 34% of the time. The other 66% of guns used here came from other states. About a quarter of them came from neighboring states; the rest presumably came from states where guns flow freely.
If Scott Brown is serious about protecting the people of Massachusetts, he should listen to Mayor Menino, who is absolutely correct in saying that “until our Congress gets serious, we’re not going to have a safe country.”
Discuss
25 Comments . Leave a comment below.Last week.
I don’t believe the 2nd amendment overrides interstate commerce authority, but I also don’t want checkpoints set up at state lines. Certainly renewing the assault weapons ban is a no-brainer. For a long time I have suggested treating firearms like vehicles in that we register the machines and license the users. However, it does seem the 2nd amendment suggests that states should be the ones to regulate their militias, plus the vehicle precedent is that the states are the ones who do it. The difference is that every state does licensing and registration of vehicles and states can trust each other, but I’m afraid that won’t be the case with firearms. Is there federal law that basically forces states’ hands with respect to vehicles, which can be used as an idea to similiarly force their hands on firearms? Otherwise we will have to do federal licensing and registration and interpret gun rights not as absolute, but as something that cannot be stripped arbitrarily and without due process.
to regulate gun and ammunition sales. It should use it. Trying to commandeer the states is constitutionally problematic. The 2nd Amendment applies equally to the states and to the federal government, so there’s no real issue there.
Is that really what you want?
For cars…
There is a complete reciprocal agreements between states, if I can drive a car in Maine, I can drive it anywhere in the US .
I can sell a car to anyone I want and neither of us has to report the sale
Felons can buy any car they want.
There is no law requiring a car to be safely stored or locked.
There is no minimum age to drive a car on private property.
You do not need to report a car as lost or stolen.
There is no law requiring you register a vehicle for use on private property.
You do not need a background check to buy a car.
You do not need to have a license to buy a car.
Other than your wallet, there is no limitation to what your car looks like, how fast it can go, number of people it can hold.
If we treated guns that way….
There is a complete reciprocal agreements between states, if I can carry a gun in Maine, I can carry it anywhere in the US .
I can sell a gun to anyone I want and neither of us has to report the sale.
Felons can buy any gun they want.
There is no law requiring a gun to be safely stored or locked.
There is no minimum age to use a gun on private property.
You do not need to report a gun as lost or stolen.
There is no law requiring you register a gun for use on private property.
You do not need a background check to buy a gun.
You do not need to have a license to buy a gun.
Other than your wallet, there is no limitation to what your gun looks like, how fast it can shoot, number of bullets it can hold.
Christopher said,
He did not say treating firearms in exactly the same manner as vehicles in all respects. He did not advocate eliminating current restrictions on gun ownership.
Also:
* There is a law requiring that you remove the keys from the car when you leave it. I’d call that ‘locked.’
* If you intend to actually use a car you’ve bought, you most certainly do have to report who you bought it from, and for how much, and present a bill of sale.
* If your car is lost or stolen, you’d have to be an idiot to not report it.
* etc. Ad absurdum
Sen Brown got the NY mayor’s endorsement for his stand on gun control. This discussion highlights that Mayor Bloomberg has other reasons for fund raising for Scott Brown. Let’s see billionaire tycoon via Wall St–nah, Mr. Bloomberg wouldn’t be lining his already bulging pockets. Instead of giving to any campaign let him add it to investments in American workers or those who need it. Giving it to Scott Brown only paints the obvious. Although not affiliated with any party we know where his sentiments lie–trickle down capitalism.
Gun control suggestions are political certain death for the majority of politicians across the US. So the Globe can do all the articles it wants but Congress will not touch it with a 10-foot pole. This includes re-instituting the AWB.
to point out the stupidity of advocating a state-by-state approach to gun laws. On that point, they’re both absolutely correct and in a good position to have an impact.
You assume folks outside MA read the Globe. David, hardly anyone reads it in state.
It’s like Kennedy’s giving awards to Kennedy’s in the Kennedy Library. Impact free.
After his exploding-cigar Chick-fil-A comments, I don’t think many policy makers will be turning to him for constitutional legal advice.
He’s talking practical common sense, from the perspective of a big-city mayor. And he’s absolutely right in what he says. Would you disagree with him? If so, where would you argue that he’s misperceived the facts?
Menino doesn’t know the facts. I don’t mean to make this a research assignment, but the FBI violent crime statistics before and after the AWB show no variation or even a slight reduction in gun-related crimes. I’ll dig up some citations. Violent crime in Boston is down too, IIRC.
In the meantime, how is it that Chicago has Draconian gun regs but is the deadliest city on earth?
And take a look at the geographic distribution of gun-related crimes in Boston. It’s not random. It’s concentrated. It’s CRIME RELATED so maybe it’s a crime problem and not a regulatory issue.
…and even then it’s only the NRA leadership. When you say “pipe dream” I hear “double down and try harder”. Bullies are allowed to bully only as long as those being bullied cower. Hit back with polls showing support for specific gun controls, overwhelmingly backed by the population at large and comfortably backed by gun owners, including rank and file NRA members. Hit back by pointing out that gun manufacturers sit on the NRA board thus more interested in their bottom lines than a general right to carry as if it is a public good. Shame them as cowards for opposing disclosure of electioneering spending. Point out that if they were so concerned about the law abiding citizen they would be first in line to make sure that ONLY law abiding citizens could get guns. We cannot just accept that certain lobbies are too powerful; they must be squashed like a bug in order to free politicians to serve the interests of the people.
It may work in Massachusetts, but in many other states it is a huge political albatross. No politician in those many states won’t go there.
Your 34% is 351/1020, the number of guns which could be traced to Massachusetts. But 1737 guns were recovered. That’s over 500 additional weapons. If, as is likely, the bulk of them crossed the state line, then the true MA percentage could be closer to 20%
over 700 additional guns.
and someone who regularly (and repeatedly) criticizes Vermont for their horribly lax gun laws (no permits, no IDs, no nothing…), I think the Federal government should approach this as they do with State’s drinking age laws and speed limits on highways… limit Federal funding on states with lax gun laws.
The Supreme Court ruled that the federal government may not threaten to withhold Medicare/Medicaid funding for states that don’t go along with the ACA. That restriction may limit the ability of the feds to use the mechanism you just described.
A letter in today’s Globe points out the absurdity of the GOP’s simultaneous push for Voter IDs and steadfast refusal to allow restrictions on automatic weapons. The GOP is on the wrong side of both issues.
We need to reinstate the federal ban on assault weapons — long before we do anything about Voter ID.
that the democrats want detailed background checks on anyone who wants to purchase a rifle, but don’t think it should be necessary to show an ID when you go vote.
Personally, I believe that there should be a background check for anyone who want to purchase a firearm, but I also believe that “opinion” should not be part of the process. If a person meets certain criteria (safety course, no crime convictions, no mental illness, no drug use…) they should be given the license. I find it absurd that if a person lives in Boston they may not get approved, but if they live in Winchester get approved. I also think that if someone is licensed to carry in Mass, that should be valid anywhere in the US.
Every gun sale from a Federal Firearms Licensed dealer requires running you through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (“NICS”) and getting a green light.
On top of this, some states have a gun purchase wait-period. During that period, dealers may be required to check for criminal or judicial (injunctions, restraining orders) backgrounds.
In MA, you cannot purchase firearms or ammunition without a firearms permit which you cannot obtain without being cleared through the Dept. of Public Safety/MA State Police.
but I guess my points were covered in the last two sentences…
“I find it absurd that if a person lives in Boston they may not get approved, but if they live in Winchester get approved. I also think that if someone is licensed to carry in Mass, that should be valid anywhere in the US.”
If they had meant to say “The powers not delegated to the United States in Section 8 are forever prohibited to the United States” they’d have said so. “Reserved” just meant “for now, unless or until the US decides to make a law to promote the general welfare or secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.
Further evidence that the powers of the United States were not intended to be limited to those enumerated in Sec 8 are that it says there are “other powers” and also that it also sets specific limits on Congressional power which are the only limits of Congresses power (except the Bill of Rights which imposes new limits on Congresses power (to not respect a religion, abridge the freedom of the press, etc).:
The enumerated powers were what the framers agreed the Federal Government was responsible for doing right then and there, and everything else was reserved for the states or people, unless the people of the United States decided to have the US start doing something more, like protect the environment for instance.
..about this article is it sounds like the guns were bought out of state and then immediately used in Mass during a crime.
The average “Time-to-crime” from purchase was 14 years, and only 81 were used in a crime within the first year of purchase. 961 of the crimes were “possession of a weapon”.
Nonesense and hardly, bostonshepard.
The fact is that 40% gun sales are “private sales” that almost always require no background check at all.
Though commonly referred to as the “Gun Show Loophole,” the “private sales” loophole include guns sold at gun shows, through classified newspaper ads, the Internet, and between individuals virtually anywhere.
That’s one hell of an exception to your “every gun purchase requires a background check” rule.
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Sat 25 May 10:59 AM