I am writing today because I believe that far too little has been done to curb the continued gun violence in our communities since the Sandy Hook tragedy that took 26 lives, including 20 children, just one year ago. A moment that promised to profoundly change our national dialogue has spurred little change in how we protect our children and our society from gun violence. I am worried that inaction on gun control reforms is the result of the disproportionate power of organizations like the NRA. I refuse to accept this power dynamic, and if elected Attorney General, I am committed to making real change for Massachusetts.
Taking on powerful special interests is nothing new for me. In fact, when I was fighting the tobacco industry in the State Senate, Rush Limbaugh called me an “anti-smoking Nazi.” I wore such criticism, and our eventual victory that made it harder to sell cigarettes to kids, as a badge of honor. If elected, I will bring that fighting spirit to the Attorney General’s office to take on the NRA.
As I wrote recently on bostonglobe.com, with the stranglehold that the NRA has on Washington DC, it is going to be up to the states to start holding them accountable and making our families and our law enforcement officers safer.
That is why I am proposing mandating the use of fingerprint recognition technology on all new firearms sold in the Commonwealth. Just as your fingerprint can be used to unlock your iPhone, fingerprint technology can be used to operate firearms. Doing so would ensure that a firearm could be operated only by its rightful owner or designees. Gun manufacturers have the technology to do this today.
This would help take the guns out of the hands of criminals who steal them. It would protect us from the tragedy of children and teens who accidentally or by choice are killed by guns left unsecured in the home. It could even save the lives of law enforcement officers, as 17 percent of police who die in the line of duty are killed by criminals who get access to the officer’s gun
We can do this by building on our first in the nation consumer protection regulations for firearms sold here in Massachusetts. Chapter 93A of the Massachusetts General Laws—the consumer protection statute— allows the Attorney General to regulate firearms and further protect the citizens of the Commonwealth from undue harm. We can use the power of this law to protect the health and safety of our citizens and require through regulations that this common sense protection be implemented.
John Tierney has tried to push a similar initiative nationally, but we all know the NRA holds too much sway in Congress. Massachusetts has always been a leader in standing up for what is right, no matter the odds. We will continue fighting the NRA to make our Commonwealth a safer and healthier place to live. We have the most effective gun laws and second lowest firearm fatality rate per capita in the nation, and when we make this next advancement in technology, we will move towards the forefront again.
We can lead again. And the answer is right at our fingertips.
I suspect that I will have an opportunity to type that many times over the coming years. Thank you for your post and willingness to showcase your innovative thinking toward solving some of our deepest problems.
I too was raised in a metro community where guns only belonged to criminals (or so it seemed as a young person.) Having more experience living and working in different regions of the state including the central and western parts near your Alma Mater, I have learned about the culture of hunting, conservation and outdoorsmanship.
My first response to gun control proposals currently is, will they take guns out of the hands of criminals? Or are they another obstacle to legal gun ownership? And/or are they another sound bite to stir people’s passions?
Wealthy attorneys and two income families in the eastern part of the state (Massachusetts’ first economy) may find it hard to believe but there are families across the Commonwealth that are struggling and dependent upon food banks and fishing as well as hunting turkey and deer for food.
Hunting and fishing for many is not a Dick Cheney ‘go out with the good ole boys and accidentally shoot your buddy in the face with your super expensive shot gun’ situation. It is about families surviving.
Yes, it is about all families surviving, especially innocent school children and it is about reducing violence of all forms and striving toward ending violence. That is why I have reservations about “gun control.” Re-frame the discussion to, “Reducing Violence and Innocent People Surviving. The re-frame must include:
-Reducing the frequency and lethality of violence
-Reducing access to weapons by those who would misuse
-Increasing education in society about mental health and linkage to violence; criminal signposts and safety
-Maintaining our right to self-determination and self-defense (I disapprove of Stand Your Ground legislation – take your former colleagues in the state senate to task with that, please!)
-Improving socio-economic equality and opportunities
-Reforming corrections with the elimination of Sheriff Departments laden with patronage
-Redistribution of Homeland Security, Law Enforcement and Corrections resources
-Shift resources to front-line law enforcement and reward/protection for by-standers to inform law enforcement
Going heels with the NRA is a losing tactic both politically and fiscally. We’ve been there, tried that….nada!
Progressive Democrats need to carve a new niche to make changes in this emotionally loaded and fear-ridden social plague.
The problem is violence. Target the roots. Get legal gun owners involved in your vision to work with you and create solutions. Form coalitions of people against gun violence that includes legal gun owners and sports persons. That is where you will find the voice for change that is needed. When progressive Democrats can frame the solution, as a solution for all, not just the liberal anti-gun crowd, that is when we will see changes begin in the schools, courts, streets and prisons. It is not, “us against them.” Those are old sound bites that have proven to be pathetically impotent.
The US cannot simultaneously be the world’s bully/savior and expect its people to not reflect the violence we eschew upon ourselves.
The Pope may be our best ally in a long time on these issues (disclosure – I am not a Catholic.) If I were your adviser, I would suggest leap-frogging over the Boston/Beacon Hill crowd and get some higher sponsors who are interested in global change on your platform along with the everyday hunter-dudes. No shit. Go for it.
I’m no fan of guns. I don’t want one anywhere near me, and I don’t believe that an armed society is safer nor more polite.
That written, I don’t think that a wide variety of gun regulations will make us safer. I think we need to focus on a few, and get them air-tight.
1. Background checks. On all gun purchases and transfers (gifts, inheritances, etc). Always. But, these checks should be fast. No stalling. They should also be thorough. Federal databases, state databases, and, if possible, other states’ databases. Criminal history, mental health history, the works. Additionally, you need to have passed a comprehensive firearm handling and safe storage course. I don’t care if you can shoot straight — I care that you can safely load and unload, handle, and store that weapon.
2. Responsibility. Want to own a gun, and can clear a background check? Cool. Take responsibility for that gun. That means carrying broad liability insurance on that firearm. That means being *criminally* liable if that gun is left unprotected [nightstand, kid knows code to safe, the works] and is discharged (or used in a crime) by anyone without specific consent, or falls into the hands of any minor who isn’t the legal child of the owner. If your firearm was stolen by force, and you don’t discover this and report it to the police within 72 hours of it’s theft, you’re guilty there too. Going away for a week? Check the gun into a firearm club, shop, or other responsible party. Think: kennel.
I think the folks who make reducing gun violence and suicide reduction a priority get bogged down in creating complicated regulations, “nickle and diming” the Second Amendment. I don’t think the Second Amendment has been interpreted correctly by SCOTUS, but given their interpretation, I think that politicians on the left have taken the wrong tack.
There’s no need to be cute nor clever. Simply exercise extreme caution when allowing the transfer of ownership of all firearms, and require that their owners exercise responsibility for their firearms or go to jail. Do those two things, and you’ll find responsible gun ownership increasing, irresponsible gun ownership declining, and the number of weapons in the hands of criminals declining.
That’s my two cents, anyways.
First of all, same here.
BUT, how do you propose fast and thorough background checks be implemented? Should every gun shop have access to an NSA-like database? Fast AND thorough background checks are impossible without violating everyone’s more fundamental civil liberties. Gun ownership is, IMO*, a privilege, and if one wants to buy a gun, they can subject themselves to and wait on the background check.
The Responsibility part sounds like a good idea. Making gun owners liable for anything done with their gun sounds like a good incentive for responsible owners to stay responsible and irresponsible people to keep away.
*Not saying that’s necessarily how I would interpret the second amendment, though.
How? Dunno. There are background checks done now, under some circumstances, within some databases. The gun shop runs the relevant info, and gets back an answer from “the system.” I’m asking that the process be expanded to be broader — all gun transactions, and a broader range of checking.
As for “fast” — you do it as fast as you can. Put the system together, and then spend some of the background check fee making the background check IT more efficient. I think that some states drag their feet on the background check as an unofficial policy, and I think that’s the wrong approach. The background check is necessary, but stalling to inconvenience prospective gun owners is not necessary nor appropriate.
I don’t like that so many people drive so much, but I don’t advocate for longer lines at the RMV either. Government should be efficient and effective with good customer service, even when serving the customers I don’t like partaking in the services I don’t appreciate.
Thank you for this post Mr. Tolman.
I am concerned about the dangers of the spreading use of biometrics like your idea here. One major problem with them is that, once stolen, a biometric ID such as a fingerprint cannot be revoked or replaced. For this reason alone, a fingerprint is a dangerous idea for unlocking a phone or a computer. I see no reason to think it’s more appropriate for a weapon.
I hope that experts in security (who are not also salesmen for the technology!) are consulted before enacting any regulation like this. It is often tempting to come up with technological solutions to social problems, but I feel that too often politicians come up with technical solutions without the required technical expertise and considerations. Debates about spying, SOPA, CISPA, DMCA, CFAA and projects like the ACA exchanges all demonstrate this well.
As a side note, regulations like this also run the danger of mandating patented technology, effectively creating a monopoly for a vendor, with all the associated negative side effects.
And don’t think it’s exclusive to the excellent ones stomv mentioned. I also think working with the vast majority of safe and sane gun owners who are not NRA fanatics would be a great way to get these regulations passed. And I like the gumption of using this office without waiting for the feds or Beacon Hill to make a solid difference. Certainly beats wasting it’s powers on political witchunts like some other AGs we know…
(ducks)
My thinking is this: implement what I laid out, and a nice sized chunk of gun owners will choose to get fingerprint locks. Know why? It will lower their liability insurance premiums, same way living near a fire department or having a security system lower your homeowners insurance.
Require the tech? Nah. Regulate properly, and tech like that will be embraced willingly.
But if gun control is going to be your focus, you misunderstand what the AG’s office is about. Prosecution/public safety is only a small part of it, and it’s really where the AG has the least power since the District Attorneys do most of the heavy lifting. So it’s on civil matters, things like stopping foreclosure fraud, where the AG really has a chance to help people. If this proposal means a lot to you, and it sounds like it does, I think you and the voters would be better served by you running for the legislature, where you could actually pass a bill and where you’d have the luxury of seeking committee assignments that would allow you to focus on your passions.
I am saying an AG who actually uses the office to help protect consumers, fight bad banks and creditors, and yes take on the gun lobby and other third rails is the kind of fighter I want there. Tolman strikes me as someone committed to actually being AG and won’t be as cautious or vindictive as past office holders who viewed it as a springboard.
I think I would support this.
An idea I have, reading through the comments, is a remote kill switch. If your gun is stilen, you activate the switch, and it can’t be fired. This technology exists — some laptops can be wiped remotely in the event that they are stolen.
This would cost gun manufacturers, of course, but not that much if done on a large scale.
Also, I’m not sure any tech solution solves enough of the problem. Aren’t most shootings in fact performed by the owner?