No military weapons in the general population, no massacre of first graders and their teachers last month in Newtown, Connecticut. This is an issue of personal security and the protection of children.
Single shot rifles that require manual loading for each new bullet should be the only permitted firearms for private ownership in the Commonwealth. Anti-personnel ammunition should be prohibited. Owners should be required to pass strict licensing requirements, apply for annual recertification, and bear unlimited personal criminal and civil liability for any illegal or negligent use of their weapons by any person. All expenses to the state associated with robust enforcement of gun security laws should be covered by annual permit fees paid by gun owners, which should be set accordingly. Current owners of non-complying weaponry should be paid just compensation for their weapons. If you have suggested revisions to the General Laws with respect to gun ownership, by all means add them in the comments.
This legislation should be enacted immediately. MarketWatch got its towns mixed up, but it might not have. Newtown, CT is 90 minutes from the state line.
Governor Patrick and the General Court should be leading on this, not New York, which isn’t even in New England. Our children died because of a crime that was foreseeable and preventable: military weaponry should not be allowed in the general population. NYT:
New York State is nearing agreement on a proposal to put what would be some of the nation’s strictest gun-control laws into effect, including what Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo vowed on Wednesday would be an ironclad ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, and new measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally ill people.
Lawmakers in Albany, seeking to send a message to the nation that the recent mass shootings demand swift action, say they hope to vote on the package of legislation as soon as next week.
doubleman says
These are the types of things that should be enacted immediately. If MA can’t get this done, I don’t know if any state can.
I’d maybe add an ammunition tax and much tougher scrutiny of the gun manufacturers here.
After Therese Murray’s mention of plans for gun control in her incredibly weak agenda speech, I am not confident anything close to this can happen. She doesn’t want to upset the large number of sportsmen in her district (in Plymouth, really?). How many reps and senators are in districts in which these sorts of policies would upset enough of their constituents to make them vote against it? Seems like a small minority to me. But maybe the gun manufacturers have a more powerful lobby here than I expect.
jconway says
I think Bobs proposal goes too far in some regards (single shot for rifles seems a bit much, mght as well only allow muskets and be even stricter constructionists), but I’d much rather going too far than the inaction we have been accustomed to and the numbness to massacre after massacre. Another one today in California, ‘just’ 2 casualties and they arent fatal, but its time to end this madness. And I’d much rather start at a stricter starting point and come down a little than come down a lot to begin with-which is what Obama and Hill Dems always do.
Bob Neer says
I think there is an argument to be made for hunting, thus single-shot rifles. They can also be effective against people, of course, but they are hard to conceal and hard to use for massacres.
soffner says
I would only add that the main target of liability laws should be the people profiting most from the gun trade – the manufacturers and sellers of these weapons. If every bullet and gun used in a crime is traceable, something that is technically possible, the sellers and manufacturers can be known and held liable for the damage they are responsible for.