For those who have been troubled by recent crime scenes given so much play in the media, you already know what a disturbing trend youth violence has taken towards guns. Gun violence has many contributing factors, not the least of which is the seemingly commonplace act of gun trafficking into cities and into the hands of young people. Any resolution to this tragedy, I believe, must include changes to our gun laws that make it more difficult for young people to get their hands on these weapons.
I am the Senate co-chair the Public Safety & Homeland Security Committee and am preparing to release a committee report analyzing this violence and recommending legislative changes. Though I know it is a bit unconventional, I have posted the final draft on my blog for public input prior to final publication. By “final draft” I mean it is my last, ‘best’ analysis, and I want to invite public input before finalizing it. Seems like a blog might be a sensible way to do this.
This is an issue on which many gun advocates have well articulated positions, as do those advocating common sense gun reforms. Some of these ideas I have considered and agree on, others I have and will always disagree with. Nonetheless, I am interested in folks with new angles on the issue–on causes but really more focused on solutions. So, check out the report and text of the legislation as re-drafted, and give me the feedback on my blog, if it is of interest to you!
I see that your proposal includes limiting gun purchases to one firearm per month. Why?
<
p>
To own a firearm in Massachusetts, citizens must already go through training, pass a background check and be considered “suitable” by the local Chief of Police. Why add more restrictions on their right to bear arms? Criminals don’t give one whit about the firearms laws in place (that’s why they are “criminals”).
<
p>
There is no reason why law-abiding citizens of the Commonwealth should be further restricted in their access to firearms.
<
p>
You’re going after the wrong group of folks here, Senator. They’ve done nothing wrong.
where do the guns used in crimes come from (statistically speaking)? For convenience, I’ll use “shooter” to describe the user of the gun in a violent crime, acknowledging that the crime might not involve actually shooting the gun (brandishing, threatening, pistol whipping, etc).
<
p>
Some places they might come from include: * Legally owned by shooter * Stolen from private citizen’s reasonably secure storage (gun safe, etc) * Stolen from private citizen’s unreasonably secure storage (laying on the front seat of the car, etc) * Stolen from gun factory/transit * Stolen from law enforcement/military
<
p>
Note: if shooter purchased gun from illegal source, then use transitivity to see where that owner got the gun.
What I’m getting at is this: if we’re worried about guns used in violent crimes, doesn’t it make sense to discover just where these particular guns are coming from? I have no agenda here — I have no idea from where they are coming. So… any ideas? Facts please, not guesses based on personal experience.
Are purchased in states where there is little to no scrutiny of whom is buying them. I remember one instance where a local Suffolk county player sent two women down to Georgia with a wad of cash. They bought fifty hand guns and were in their way back to MA, when arrested.
<
p>
Many of the other guns are stolen in B&E’s.
I think you forget purchased legally by shooter elsewhere, and brought into Massachusetts, and purchased legally elsewhere by someone who then brings it into Massachusetts, and set it along the chain that led to shooter.
<
p>
I bet these categories count for more of weapons used in crime than the rest of the scenarios on your list.
This is a nice service you have provided the public.
<
p>
Regarding your bill:
<
p>
1. Establishing penalties for not reporting lost or stolen guns. How can this be proven by a prosecutor? What safe guards are there to protect the law abiding gun owner who unknowingly has a gun stolen which is later used in a crime?
<
p>
Will this take resources and time devoted to provable cases away from prosecutors?
<
p>
2. Amending the Bail Statute so a judge may consider possession of an illegal gun when considering bail.
<
p>
Correct me if I am wrong. But can’t a judge consider that now. Does not a judge have wide discretion when setting bail. Does having statutorily facts to consider result in other compelling bail related facts not to receive the weight they deserve?
<
p>
This seems like fluff to me, with no real substance.
<
p>
3. Can you tell us what the ‘illegal gun in the house loophole’ is.?
<
p>
4.Final Question:
<
p>
What the hell does “gentle readers” mean? I have never seen that salutation.
<
p>
5. Oh, and one more final question. Did you really “preach” at a church in Chelsea?
<
p>
Thank you
I read the summary; the answers to your questions are in plain view. I’ll summarize the summary for you:
<
p>
<
p>
This is apparently in response to people who buy, and then “lose” their guns often. While I share your concern that someone would be prosecuted for merely having a gun stolen, it seems to be a pretty big loophole if you can buy a case of guns, “have them stolen”, and then rinse and repeat.
<
p>
<
p>
I think you’re wrong. The summary says this:
<
p>
<
p>
Isn’t giving tools to allow harder prosecution a Republican bread and butter issue? Does the NRA trump that?
<
p>
<
p>
From the summary:
<
p>
<
p>
So in other words, if you’re a gun dealer, simply keep the guns you’re selling in your home. If you’re caught, they can’t be held against you.
<
p>
I’m dismissing your final two questions as fluff.
How do you prove a person knew his gun was lost or stolen. Only the regular non criminal type gun owner will be prosecuted and convicted. This law will do nothing.
<
p>
2. you state “a defendant caught in illegal possession of a firearm cannot have this weapon explicitly weighed in the consideration of whether to set bail or in a dangerousness hearing.”
<
p>
I cannot find that anywhere in the bail statutes or case law. can you or the Senator give me a cite for that.
<
p>
Here is what a real law book says : (Mass Practice – Criminal Law)
<
p>
the factors considered for bail are “the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, the potential penalty the prisoner faces, the prisoner’s family ties, financial resources, employment record and history of mental illness, his reputation and the length of residence in the community, his record of convictions, if any, any illegal drug distribution or present drug dependency, any flight to avoid prosecution or fraudulent use of an alias or false identification, or any failure to appear at any court proceeding to answer to an offense, whether the prisoner is on bail pending adjudication of a prior charge, whether he is on probation, parole, or other release pending completion of sentence for any conviction, and whether he is on release pending sentence or appeal for any conviction.”
<
p>
Now, the nature and circumstances of offense charge include gun charge.
<
p>
Yet no where can I find anything close to the assertion you and the Senator are making.
<
p>
Stop making things up.
<
p>
3. Gun in the Home Loophole.
Thanks for answering my question.
<
p>
4. “I’m dismissing your final two questions as fluff.”
<
p>
Who asked you, you self-important putz? I would like to know if Sen Barrios is becoming a Jesus freak. A born again Christian. What is it? He is preaching. He addresses his constituents as “gentle readers”.
<
p>
You know what that is?
That is fucking creepy. That is what that is.
…the idea becase I agree that it will not likely not target the intended population, but your assertion about the impracticability of proving one knew their gun was lost or stolen is incorrect. Either in the statute or at common law a reasonableness standard would be determined, something like – it is not reasonable for a gun owner to allow more than six months to pass without verfying their firearm is still in their posession – then all you have to do is prove the owner was negligent in living up to the duty set by that standard. This sort of construction exists already in other areas of the criminal law and it is not unworkable. It would be worth the effort if it actually achieved its goal.
How can u prove when gun was missing. Rediculous waste of tiome and law enforcement energy.
<
p>
You reasoning is very flawed.
….my reasoning if fine and dandy. Owning a gun creates a duty of proper care. If one breaches a duty of care in a manner inconsistent with a legal doctrine they can be held criminally liable. How that breach is defined will have more ominous terms of art than “reasonable” it is most likely certain – wanton, reckless, grossly negligent or the like but those are just degrees of reasonability (or lack thereof) in the eyes of the law.
<
p>
I don’t support the law, but your contention that it is not practicable (which is not the same thing as practical) is dead wrong.
<
p>
How do you prove when a gun went missing?(Or more to the point, if its owner can be held criminally liable for not reporting that it is missing)?
<
p>
– Gun is used in crime on Jan. 1st
– Gun is recovered during investigation of another crime on June 2nd
– On august third the gun is tied forensically to the first crime
– On August fourth the police visit the owner of record and say “sir we have a few questions about your gun” to which owner replies “that old thing, its been in a shoebox in the garage for five or six years, can’t recall last time I set eyes on it, what a bout it fellas?”
<
p>
See, not so hard. Granted, they won’t all be that easy but far from impossible. If the standard (granted for this example a figment of my imagination) is “every six months an own must verify possession of all firearms” you just proved that gun owner failed to live up to his duty of care. Not difficult to prove at all. Very practicable indeed, just not at all practical.
<
p>
you have zero understanding of how criminal law works and the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.
<
p>
Basically you are saying if you are a victim- your gun was stolen – then u r a criminal.
<
p>
it don’t work that way. even though you are impressed with your own uneducated ignorant reasoning. I am glad u have at least one fan.
but I don’t think that
<
p>
<
p>
is at all what he’s saying. He’s saying that if your gun gets stolen you have a responsibility to report that theft. Not doing so the crime — not the gun getting stolen.
<
p>
Gun ownership requires extra responsibility, and nobody disputes that*. The question is merely what extra responsibilities. Checking on your gun every 6 months to determine that it hasn’t been stolen certainly seems within the realm of possible legal responsibilities.
* Leave a loaded gun on your end table with a toddler in the house, and let me know how that works out for you legally…
Gun must have been stolen after 6 month review. Are u saying gun owners file paper work every 6 months?
<
p>
there is no sense to this becaue it does jack shit to prevent crime. And impossible to prove.
<
p>
you think too much.
<
p>
I have to live in real world.
<
p>
i just gave my illegal gun to my friend to go out and commit crimes. We will split the $$$$.
<
p>
I reported the gun stolen so i am safe.
<
p>
However, my brothers gun was stolen and used in a crime. He didn’t report it because he did not know, and six month reporting isn’t for another 5 months, so he didn’t check on it. Now the cops want to charge him
<
p>
Great fucking law.
<
p>
Really targets the bad guys
<
p>
i live in the real world.
You’ve been dropping lots of F-bombs lately. I don’t know if you’ve got some stress in your personal life or something, but it’s “extra spice” even for you.
<
p>
Having said that:
<
p>
I didn’t advocate for the requirement. I merely pointed out that it’s not out-of-left-field, since there are other responsibilities assigned to those who exercise their right to own a firearm.
<
p>
<
p>
That’s one possibility, a more extreme one than I had considered. Perhaps merely make it a requirement. If your gun gets used in a crime, you’ve got to testify that you had personally verified that it was within your lawful possession within the past six months. If it can be proven that it was not (innocent until proven guilty), then you’re guilty — not of murder/robbery/etc, but of not keeping your gun secure.
<
p>
<
p>
It doesn’t do nothing to prevent crime — if it encourages folks to check on their guns more often, that’s good. Maybe it was stolen in a break-in, or maybe (and quite possibly) by a child, a neighbor, a neighbor’s child, etc. Noticing that the gun was stolen and reporting that gun missing won’t prevent all stolen-gun-crimes, but it might help provide details for some, and it certainly may help the police put together the facts more easily when investigating a crime.
<
p>
Is it worth the overhead? I don’t know — I know little about criminal justice or gun laws.
<
p>
<
p>
You mean you haven’t been offered a free transport to the fake world? Bummer dude.
<
p>
<
p>
Until your friend turns you in for being an accessory. Now, it’s you verses him in court, no different from how it works right now.
<
p>
<
p>
Huh? That sure isn’t in my understanding w.r.t. the idea of requiring owners to check on their guns every t time units.
<
p>
<
p>
I’m not sure I would classify gun owners who can’t seem to secure their weapons with reasonable certainty, and then can’t seem to notice that their weapons have been stolen within 6 months as “good guys.” Evil, no. Negligent? I’d say so.
<
p>
I’ll mail you tickets to transport to the fake world that everyone with whom you disagree lives in, just to visit.
My Personal life is fine. So fuck you for asking.
<
p>
Your explanations so why this law is a joke. People have a duty to secute their guns. you want them to be criminally liable if it is stolen.
<
p>
Again, alot of resources wasted on false hustle.
<
p>
99.995 of guns on the street are not stolen from legal gun owners.
<
p>
Most of them come from the south.
<
p>
I stick to the facts of what is happeneing now. not this fluff from barrios.
<
p>
bTW no one has answered my question about the assertion that illegal gun possession cannot be considered when setting bail.
<
p>
that is absolutely not true….
btw stom. fuck you.
<
p>
My personal life is fine.
I hope you de-stress somehow and cease the nasty language and the attacks. Really, it’s quite ugly.
<
p>
I never asserted — nor did anyone else — that someone should be held criminally liable for their gun being stolen. I’m suggesting that one could reasonably be required to check to see if their gun has been stolen every t time units, and then merely report the theft in a timely manner. They wouldn’t be liable for their gun being stolen, they’d be liable if they failed to check the status of their gun every t time units.
<
p>
Now, as for the gun being an attractive nuisance (leaving it on the coffee table with an eight year around), yeah if the kid “steals” the gun and shoots somebody with it, I would like to see the owner held criminally liable. Likewise — you leave your loaded gun on the bar counter when you get up to pee and you come back to find the guy at the stool next to you is using it to hold up the place, then again, maybe some liability is in order.
<
p>
<
p>
Your butt is not a reliable source for data. Just to be clear, you’re claiming that only one gun out of every 20,000 “on the street” have been stolen from legal gun owners. Methinks you (or rather, your butt) are off by a few orders of magnitude sir.
<
p>
<
p>
you wrote “facts” but I think you meant “data coming straight from my butt”. Don’t fret, it’s a common mistake.
I’m glad to hear you’re feeling fine. I’m sorry to learn that you act like a jerk.
Good luck.
<
p>
Intent is still a prerequisite
….is not a pre-requisite for all criminal offenses, it is called strict liability – look it up.
There is no strict liability in criminal law. Only in civil matters.
<
p>
Please, name one crime that has strict liability, regardless of intent.
<
p>
I have looked it up. Obvioulsy you Haven’t
That can be proven by evidence. Usually circumstantial. Which is how it is done. It takes more than finding it on a computer near you. You have to link computer to defendant. Then with e-mails and other stuff forensic computer people do they show that only such and such a person did it.
If puter is only used by defendant.
<
p>
No such thing as strict liability in criminal law.
<
p>
Unconstitutional.
….and here is a short list of criminal offenses that do not require any intent –
<
p>
-Statutory Rape
-DUI
-Involuntary Manslaughter (intent it could be argued is imputed through wanton and reckless disregard for a duty of care, but that is not mens rea in the traditional sense)
<
p>
There are also many lessor infractionary crimes that do not require intent and in many jurisdictions there are weapons crimes that do not require intent.
Statutory rape, defendant intended to and knew he was having sex.
<
p>
OUI, defendant intentionally drove car
<
p>
Reckless disregard is a state of mind. Meaning intent.
<
p>
Please, you are just showing all how ignorant you are.
…again on you.
<
p>
Statutory rape – strict liability, even if the perpetrator believed or was led to believe partner was age of consent they are still liable
<
p>
OUI – If you intentionally drive a car believing (even credibly that you are sober)you have not intended to drive under the influence but you are guilty nonetheless if you blood concentration is sufficient, it can count even if you did not know you were consuming alcohol
<
p>
Reckless disregard: if you think this proves intent in the narrow sense you have been defining it then you prove my point. If you don’t check your gun regularly you are reckless and can be held liable.
<
p>
You are so, so, very, very incorrect.
all these exampleas you gave a defendant had a choice,
<
p>
i drank and i will drive.
<
p>
i will have sex with that person
<
p>
i will not consider safety of others and throw a cinder block off the roof onto a busy side walk.(reckless disregard0
<
p>
This is not strict liability. In every instance the person has free will and made decisions. Including not questioning the age of some youg tramp who will let you get in her pants.
<
p>
Go away anthony. I will never concede on this point. and neither would a lawyer, judge or law professor.
<
p>
As for your gun checking idea. How can you show when it was stolen? I checked my gun when i was suppose to. Now you tell me it was just used in a crime. When was it stolen?
<
p>
How do you know. When the cops come and tell me my gun was used in a crime I don’t have to tell them when I checked on it. yiu are familiar with the fifth amendment I hope.
<
p>
So then what happens?
<
p>
You idea is not practicle and unenfoeceable and leaves much wiggle room.
<
p>
It is what is called a joke.
Schmuck
…just because there is some choice to act does not mean it is not strict liability. For gosh sakes look it up, you are just plain wrong.
<
p>
My idea was hypothetical to dispute your original claim about intent. I said it was impracticle. It is not, however, impracticable.
<
p>
Schmuck back at you.
strict liability is used only in civil law. In fact liability is a civil law term. Not used anywhere in criminal law. It is not mentioned in any staute or case law referring to criminal conduct. the worg liability is only used in civil law.
<
p>
It is civil law and not criminal law by definition.
<
p>
So go to law school or shut the FUCK UP!!! You do not know what you are talking about.
….I am totally correct. I’ll concede that there is a limited amount of strict liability in criminal jurisprudence, but it exists nonetheless. You are wrong and vulgar.
It has a very specific legal definition. It is used only in civil matters. You can apply whatever definition you want but I have to apply the one the law and the court provide.
<
p>
Now again, go to law school or shut up!!!
<
p>
You can argue this in class and not graduate.
…I got an A in criminal law.
<
p>
Take a look at the bottom of page twelve here.
<
p>
Forgot to mention felony murder. While the MPC does not categorize it as a crime of strict liability some jurisdictions certainly do.
<
p>
Did you actually graduate from law school???
<
p>
SCARY!
did you?
<
p>
And yes i did read the bottom of page 12. Take a closer look at it. Nowhere does it give strict liability to anything. In fact it shows how they work around it.
<
p>
Are you really a lawyer? scary
<
p>
Massachusetts does not use the model penal code and our states declaration of rights has many more protections.
<
p>
So go back to chasing ambulances. If in fact you are an attorney. What kind are you> I know you are not a criminal lawyer or a prosecutor.
<
p>
Or was this a criminal law class at BunKER Hill community College?
…you are totally wrong. Both my Criminal Law and Evidence professors were judges in MA and they taught me all about strict liability in criminal practice right here in the Commonwealth where, as you pointed out, the MPC has not been adopted. That document was just an easy link to prove how very wrong you very much were.
<
p>
Toodles!
It says that strict liability only can occur in civil infractions 9there is that word civil again) and where there is reckless disregard. Both of these prove my point. Civil and reckless disregard.
<
p>
All your examples follow these two things.
<
p>
That is differnt because strict liability implies you do not need reckless disregard.
<
p>
Yopu are still wrong you dope.
<
p>
Real strict liability would be something like this.
<
p>
There is strict liability on drug possession.
<
p>
A person secretly puts drugs in anothers backpack. In fact survellience video shows this. The poerson has no idea he has drugs on him.
to bad. he is guilt because of strict liability.
<
p>
There is no no no no criminal law like that.
ther require either reckless disregard or it is a civil infraction.
That is the difference.
<
p>
So you went to law school. Did you pass the bar?
How many cases have you tried?
<
p>
…all you want. There are volumes of legal scholarship on strict liability in criminal law. You are wrong. You seem to want to define it yourself in a way that it is not actually defined to prove that it doesn’t exist. Have fun with that.
<
p>
Your last reference proved my point. No strict liability in criminal. On;ly in civil and where there is wanton disregard.
<
p>
You can’t be a real lawyer.
…here is a Harvard Law Review Article synopsis:
<
p>
<
p>
An here is one from Cornell:
<
p>
<
p>
For the record, I don’t even approve of strict liability crimes. They just happen to exist.
<
p>
…to do your own research. I’ve provided a list of strict liability crimes. I stand by it. The articles I cited are in agreement. I suggest you write the Harvard and Cornell law reviews and the SCOTUS if you think they’ve gotten it wrong. I’m sure they’d love to hear from you. I bet if you pepper your correspondence with F-bombs you’ll go to the front of the line.
statutory rape and oui are not strict liability. You have not show the crimes. What specific crimes and what jurisdictions are you talking about. Obviously you have those law review articles so please tell me.
You are probably confusing an academic conjecture with real life. name the crimes. and readthis
….has nothing to do with it. The reasonable doubt standard would not be offenden. I’m done playing cause you’re just egging me on. I’m certain I’m correct.
That nitwit that killed his wife and daughter in Northboro used his father in laws gun. His father inlaw never knew it was missing. The guy goes and get the gun kills his family, returns the gun, His father in law takes the gun out and shoots it, THEN the cops and DA find that it is a murder weapon. Should the father in law been held culpable if this proposed law is enacted?
<
p>
At one point in time I had firearms. One I knew the whereabouts of. The second was “hidden” in my house somewhere. Every once in a while I’d go hunting for it because I had no idea where I put it.
<
p>
Now you want to go after people who have firarms in their own homes. You wonder why you invite the wrath of the NRA and the 2nd amendment people.
<
p>
A gun is like a steak knife. A criminal or a person disposed to criminal behavior will use it unlawfully. The law abiding citizen will not. Stick to going after bad guys and leave Joe Citizen alone.
<
p>
Seen recently on a T-shirt in Baghdad. ” GUNS DON”T KILL PEOPLE. I KILL PEOPLE”
…to go after anyone’s legally owned gun. I was just making a point about the law to deflate some of Master Boch III’s hyperbole. And in the case you describe it would be very unlikely that the law would be drawn so narrowly to make someone liable for a gun that was stolen for less than 24 hours without their knowledge. I would hope however, that if the gun was missing for a month or two that the guy would have taken notice.
we will just prosecute black guys.
The person is saying, we won’t go after good people, only bad people. I think I made a valid point. That is what is called selective enforcemnt and that is what leads to discrimination.
<
p>
Yet you good liberals give me 3s
…you made a deliberately incindiary comment rather than discussion the point of contention. And, your point was factually incorrect.
Did you know Sen. Barrios now makes announcements to news organizations about the cause of traffic accidents?
<
p>
http://wbztv.com/top…
<
p>
I would be fascinated to know where Sen. Barrios gained his truck loading expertise, since I do not think he has ever held a job which involved motor vehicle transport.
<
p>
Also – I am astonished that Transportation Committee members now trump the police when announcing the course of ongoing investigations. Really – not even the Chairman!
<
p>
Perhpas next John Bineinda will do your taxes as head of the Taxation Committee?
<
p>
Alert to JFK II – the title of ‘Live Shot’ may be slipping from your grasp!
Ernie, I’m not making things up. I quoted from the report that Sen. Barrios published. And you know that.
Not you. And you don’t know and Barrios won’t answer
<
p>
Ernie, the phrase “gentle reader” has nothing to do with religion or the Bible. is an idiomatic Victorian salutation widely used by writers of the period, including, among others, Charlotte Bronte in Jane Eyre (“Gentle reader, I married him.”)
<
p>
Nowadays it is used in an anachronistic way as a joke (see Miss Manners for perhaps the best-known current user of the term), which is the way 99.99% of most reasonably literate people take it.
<
p>
It would help if you did some checking about a benign rhetorical device before you jump to conclusions and then off the deep end based on those conclusions. Because otherwise, you end up looking like an ass, as you most certainly have here.
I guess Barrios expects all his constituents to be as well read as him
This is so much crap. Massachusetts has had the Bartley-Fox gun law on the books for thirty years. If found guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm the defendent gets a year mandatory. Anyone care to hazard a guess how many folks in reality are so charged and when convicted are sent away for a year or more? Almost none–virtually zero. Why? Because these district attorneys who are now spouting outrage and pontificating are guilty of nonfeasance. They are grossly derelict in their responsibilities. Compounding the problem are judges (most of them) who take judicial notice and reduce the unlawful possession of a firearm and reduce the offense to possession of a dangerous weapon, and give the offender a continuance, a suspended sentence or six months with three to serve.
<
p>
Want to blame someone? Blame prosecutors, judges, and the politicians and governors who appoint these people. Next blame the people who elect these people. Wait a minute, that’s us. Oops, I guess no one is responsible. After all, this is Massachusetts. No one is responsible for anything!
Peeople are being sent away on gun charges everyday. What do you base your information on.
Or perhaps you don’t want trials and requisite proof.
I didn’t say no one went to jail. I SAID, people don’t go for the MAX! One year to be served—MINIMUM, under Bartley-Fox. No plea bargains.
because gun possession cannot be broken down to possession of dangerous weapon. It is not a lesser included offense. seperate staute. which means it can’t happen.
<
p>
where do you people get your information?
Pull your pants up
<
p>
I am serious
<
p>
As a registered Republican – I can appreciate what he is implying and I applaud it.
<
p>
Pulling your pants up means;
<
p>
saying no to drugs
getting a job
studying and doing homework
helping around the house
rooting out criminals by telling what you know
<
p>
etc
etc
etc
<
p>
Spoken like someone who lives in a community that doesn’t have an illegal gun problem.
<
p>
The big problem is that the presence of a small number of criminals winds up holding a much larger number of people mentally hostage. When you can’t take a walk at night because you’re afraid of being shot at, it’s not your “personal responsibility” that matters — it is the responsibility of others, and you can’t control that.
Springfield?
c’mon
How about monies, in the form of rewards, devoted to rooting out illegal guns? How about a lottery-like bonus for turning up one linked to a shooting, provided that a person is arrested with it in their possession?
<
p>
Gun buybacks have been pooh-poohed, and I tend to agree. But I have to believe that people in the trenches must know who has the guns. If someone knows about a gun-toting idiot out there, they call the cops, give the information, and when the gun is taken off the street (and hopefully, the person with the gun), they get $100 or $200 or whatever the going rate is.
So you want the snitches to give their names to the cops.
believe me. Onl;y the criminals will figure out how to benefit from that. Take their rivals out.
<
p>
Naive mfer.
So your argument is “some criminal will figure out how to benefit from that”? In other words, you’ve got nothing to say against the idea. Nice.
Where will tye money come from.
What about illegal searches and seizure.
The cops would have to respond right away. The reporting person would have to see the gun. Not call on a hunch.
Many Many legal search and seizure problems.
<
p>
But then again, you aren’t a lawyer. And it shows.
“Where’d you get them kool Nike’s?” “I got’m for free. I turned in some dude for have’n some heat.” How long do you think his life expectancy would be? Not in days—in hours.
where is the cite for the legal rule you tell us exists that prohibits judges from considering an illegal gun found on the defendant when setting bail.
<
p>
I am waiting.
I’m no lawyer; my citation was pretty clear, it was from the summary presented by Senator Barrios. Why don’t you call him up on the phone and call him a “fucking liar” or something — I bet he’ll respond eagerly.
Offer him a Fluffernutter(tm) before you do.
you are no lawyer, on top of being nopol. i don’t have to call barrios. Because i, like most in the state house, know he is full of shit on most everythging.
<
p>
thanks for admitting you do not know what you are talking about. You can’t fix your problem until you admit you have one.
<
p>
good luck in your recovery
I am all too aware of the passions that laws around guns evoke in some persons, and hope here to answer some questions raised for the purposes, I hope, of helping hone the substance of these remarks as useful suggestions for legislation concerning gun trafficking.
<
p>
(1) Bartley Fox: This law doesn’t really exist anymore in its traditional form–the penalty was increased a couple of years ago (by a bill I wrote and that was passed into law concerning gangs), and, contrary to what has been said on this blog, it is used with some frequency, particularly in the new gun court sessions in Suffolk County. As may be obvious to some, its frequent use is one reason we haven’t focused on mandatory minimums here as a tool for the gun problem: we already have that tool and it works for end-users. The other reason: it is used on the ‘end-users’ and the focus of this legislation is the pipeline. I have encountered a lot of misinformation on this point, and it usually comes from law-abiding citizens who are concerned about how gun laws will personally affect them–I respect this, but respectfully disagree with the conclusion because it is not supported in fact.
<
p>
(2) Some have also made the observation that these guns are pouring into Massachusetts from states with laxer laws, the implication being that there is nothing we can do till they tighten their laws. This is both true and untrue. According to stats provided the committee and cited in the report, one example illustrates the dichotomy: Virginia’s passage of a bulk-purchasing gun ban several years ago resulted in the percentage of crime guns (guns recovered at the scenes of crimes) recovered at Mass. crime scenes to drop dramatically. So, some might argue that means we simply must wait for others to act. I believe the answer is that (1) we improve our own system –since almost 40% of crime guns originate in Massachusetts–and also do what we can to improve info/registration on out-of-state guns. This is in the report. In particularly, encouraging MAss. to lead by creating a gun registry compact–similar to what we did with Sex offender tracking two years ago–allows us to circumvent the Tiert amendment prohibiting ATF from sharing critical data in its possession for those investigating gun crimes.
<
p>
(3) The thrust of the bill is on trafficking, which is why so many of the suggestions deal with the technicalities of registering and reporting. For those who read this carefully, it will be apparent that improved technology use (real-time identificaiton of purchases, for example, using bio-metric information now available in some police stations and some licensed dealers)actually help a law-abiding citizen buy a gun faster. Unfortunately, the ‘camels-nose-under-the-tent’ approach to this policy area by some law abiding gun owners has frustrated the development of common sense enforcement strategies. The importance of lost and stolen gun reporting is connected to an improved registry–which implicates even those guns brought out of state (Out of state gun purchases must be registered and in so registering they become subject to our state’s laws). Significiantly, targetting those who supply guns can’t simply begin by enforcing a reporting statute that has gone largely un-enforced. Many law abiding citizens with guns who have simply not registrered a lost or stolen gun (or any secondary market sale, for that matter) would be in danger of running afoul of the law. This is why public education is important and one of the recommendations here proposed, as well as improved technology to make it easier to register these matters with the Criminal History Systems Board. At the end of the day, this bill seeks to raise the stakes for dealers, not just the kids on the streets (who are already getting prosecuted) for doing their business in Massachusetts. Any effort to target the prevalence of guns on the street MUST address the pipeline issue. There are those who disagree with this point, but this is the central premise of this report. I am appreciative of those who have taken the time to make suggestions, keep them coming.
<
p>
(4) Posting a near-final committee report here for comment is an experiment by someone intrigued with the possiblities of this cyber-forum. I have no regrets about doing so, as I have always been impressed by the quality of much commentary here. I understand there is also a thread of civility-challenged remarks here, remarks that have nothing to do with the subject of gun trafficking. I understand that as a public official, I will be subject to many of these remarks. Ultimately, it may simply be a limitation of the forum, however, that solicitations for comments result in engaging in personalities, and suggesting perhaps that some who blog are blogging for reasons other than to discuss policy. That cyber-future –which will ultimately circumnavigate the full range of what is possible on the internet–is not mine to determine.
<
p>
for a little uncivility. But i do want to know about your preaching.
<
p>
Can you answer the question regarding bail on gun cases. Isn’t the currentbail statute enough? What is this assertion that gun possession cannot be argued or considered in a bail hearing. A commentaor named NoPOl states that that bis your position.
but what you misspelled was “perhaps the most uncivil behavior in the history of BMG.”
<
p>
Common misspelling. I think Firefox has an extension for it.
Is that you’re making every 2nd Ammendment defender and legal firearm owner on this board cringe, with your incessant, crude remarks.
<
p>
We get that you disagree with the Senator’s proposal. So do I.
<
p>
But you are turning this thread into a joke.
Please stop.
without me.
<
p>
And I never said I was 2nd Amendment defender. You read too much into it.
I am trying to
<
p>
1. point out the absurdity of the bail portion of the bill;
<
p>
and
<
p>
2. Point out the impracticalities of some of the portions of the bill. After the bill becomes law Sen Barrios doesn’t deal with it. Instead the courts do, the prosecutors do, the police do, and resources and $$$ are required.
Not to mention the legal ramifications. Appeals courts boot these laws all the time.
<
p>
Did you notice the comment in thgis thread by the ziper head who said that there is strict liability in criminal cases.
<
p>
That is as incorrect as Barrios assertion that illegal gun possesion cannot be a factor when a judge considers bail.
<
p>
That is outright wrong. And the Senator has not answered my inquiry concerning that.
PIT BULLS quake when they see you comin’!
Senator, instead of suggesting more and more laws that infringe on the 2nd Amendment Rights of the citizens of the Commonwealth, how about this suggestion:
<
p>
1. Get caught with an illegal firearm: 5 years in the state pen, mandatory.
<
p>
2. Use an illegal firearm in the commission of a crime, 10 years added to whatever sentence you receive. Second offense, 25 years added.
<
p>
You seem to always focus on guns themselves. Guns do not commit crime, criminals do. A gun is no more than a tool. In fact, none of the firearms I own have ever caused a crime because they are inanimate objects.
<
p>
Put some teeth into gun crime sentencing and the folks using illegal guns might think twice about what they are doing.
possesion of an illegal firearm cannot be a factor when considering bail?
<
p>
I am curious. it would help your constituents and myself to better evaluatre your bill. I cannot find case law or a staute which denies the Commonwealth the opportunity to poit out illegal gun possesion when arguing bail.
<
p>
Thank you
<
p>
you much more civil commentator and gentle reader,
<
p>
EB3
As one who has legally purchased firearms over many years, and most recently within the past year, I can say that the state has me jumping through plenty of hoops to exercise my right. There is an extensive background check, and my application was most definately signed under penalty of perjury.
<
p>
I have several issues with your proposed legislation. Please look them over.
<
p>
<
p>
I am already asked that question on my application, Senator. My reply, each time, is clearly
stated on my permit. It reads: “Any Lawful Purpose”.
What more does the state need to know?
Are you suggesting that a law abiding citizen be required to ‘justify’ her purchase to a bureaucrat?
What “reasons” will be deemed “appropriate”? And by whom?
<
p>
<
p>
In other words, I must supply a list of my firearms every time I renew my LTC?
What is the purpose of this list? Is it to influence the decision as to whether my renewal should be approved?
Is the list not simply a means by which my firearms may be easily confiscated if I am denied renewal?
Will the next proposal be for random “spot checks”, to verify the accuracy of these lists?
Will this “list” become part of a database? Accesible by whom?
<
p>
<
p>
I am in favor of education.
However, I would ammend this provision to include all citizens of the Commonwealth.
If the plentitude of firearms statutes already on the books were more widely known and understood by the populace, there would be less clamor for, and tolerance of, redundant, feel good, anti gun legislation, in favor of a more robust enforcement of the laws that already address the issues of illegal gun activity.
<
p>
<
p>
Are you inferring that anyone who owns more than a dozen firearms is a potential trafficker?
Will collectors & aficionados be restricted or banned altogether?
Why the arbitrary one per month limit?
<
p>
<
p>
You could be locking up unwitting heirs here, Senator.
Knowinly carrying an “illegal” firearm is a lot different than having granddad’s Springfield 1911 in a trunk in the attic.
You allow no discretion by the courts to determine whether the infraction is innocent or intentional.
<
p>
Don’t get me wrong, Senator Barrios. I do not consider my 2nd Ammendment rights to be a free-for-all. And I, too, am concerned about the upturn in youth violence.
<
p>
But unlike yourself, I do not believe that kids are killing kids simply because there exists an opportunity to secure a weapon to do so.
<
p>
The problem is far deeper, uglier, and more complex than most legislators seem to want to believe.
They continue to cower at the prospect of addressing the root causes of the violence and prefer to treat the symptoms, leaving the disease to progress unchecked.
<
p>
Sadly, I see this proposed legislation, as well intentioned as I’m sure it is, to just layer more icing onto an already rotten cake.
“You could be locking up unwitting heirs here, Senator.
Knowinly carrying an “illegal” firearm is a lot different than having granddad’s Springfield 1911 in a trunk in the attic.
You allow no discretion by the courts to determine whether the infraction is innocent or intentional”
<
p>
Trust me geo, those are the people whom will be locked up. The truly innocent.