Good job, President Obama. NYT Op-Ed:
I will not campaign for, vote for or support any candidate, even in my own party, who does not support common-sense gun reform. And if the 90 percent of Americans who do support common-sense gun reforms join me, we will elect the leadership we deserve.
Thus, the most popular national politician of our time, twice elected by huge majorities in the electoral college and majorities of millions in the popular vote, and supported by 61 percent of Massachusetts voters over our own former governor (RIP, Seamus). This is the future — the demographics are striking — and the fanaticism of gun owners as the country changes around them underlines the point.
That same principle should apply right here in Massachusetts. Some of our legislators have favorable ratings from the Gun Owners Action League and work every day to make it easier for terrorists, criminals, and lunatics to arm themselves and oppress or harm law abiding citizens from Provincetown to North Adams. Of course, they claim that is not their objective, just like the pro-crime NRA, but it is the practical effect of their actions. These dangerous and irresponsible individuals should be primaried, defeated and dismissed no matter what their party. Find the one nearest you.
More generally, Obama’s 90 percent statistic underlines the pressing need to reform, at a minimum, the filibuster rules in the Senate. That 10 percent of the population can block the will of 90 percent of the United States is grotesquely undemocratic.
I am happy to report that Lexington is advancing Robert Rotberg’s citizen article this Spring to ban assault weapons in town.
Note that this is stronger than the now-sunset Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which did not apply to assault weapons already in possession at the time the ban was passed.
This proposal will reportedly be modeled after a 2013 ordinance passed in Highland Park, Illinois. And I think it stands a very good chance to pass in Town Meeting.
Among GOAL’s suggested talking points against this common sense pro-safety measure, which would protect citizens from lunatics armed with assault weapons: “This proposal is a solution to a problem that does not exist.” Tell that to the victims of the San Bernardino terrorists.
Sandy Hook is in everyone’s fresh memory. So is San Bernardino. If it happened there, it could happen anywhere.
Let it come to a vote, town by town if we have to, where we know each other and we’re all neighbors. And let’s see who’s voting against it.
Good luck finding cops who are willing to go to the house of someone minding their own business to confiscate their AR15s because Lexington (irony) decided they can’t own them anymore.
You know these laws don’t just magically make the guns disappear, right? Someone have to go and take them away from these people who now believe the government is depriving them of their constitutional rights and are stripping them of their arms.
I bet you ANYTHING there are plenty of guns that should be confiscated in that city but haven’t been and won’t be.
You mention Lexington MA. Lexington is a member of NEMLEC — one of those quasi-public SWAT entities that we’ve already discussed here. This particular one is the target of lawsuits by the ACLU motivated by NEMLEC’s refusal to disclose information under the Massachusetts open record laws.
The entire purpose of that membership is to provide “police services beyond what local police may have”. A Lexington household storing illegal weapons that civilian authorities have said should be confiscated is, in my view, PRECISELY the kind of local terrorist threat that SWAT teams like NEMLEC are supposed to manage.
If NEMLEC, and entities like it, aren’t willing or able to confiscate these weapons, then entities like NEMLEC et al should be disbanded.
A person who is refusing to turn over illegal weapons (the scenario you describe) is NOT “minding their own business”. They are breaking the law. When the time comes (and it will) when a majority of Massachusetts voters decide that AR15s (or whatever) are illegal to possess (I like Mr. Obama’s suggestion that they may be owned — and may only be stored and used at designated and regulated shooting ranges), then it is the duty of cops to confiscate those weapons. Those who refuse should be summarily fired, with prejudice.
We do not yet live in a society where armed police decide what laws are to be enforced and what may be ignored. Your suggestion to the contrary strikes at the heart and soul of American life.
We in Massachusetts have a particular obligation to preserve the role of civilian law enforcement, given our unique history with its absence.
…that given your comment title I wasn’t sure which direction you were going to go, since you have objected to aggressive police tactics in the past and the anti-control side almost certainly would raise the specter of a police state.
If we’re going to have these aggressively militarized units, then I have no patience for arguments about how little the resulting army can do.
I think you’re correct, below, that a warrant will still be needed before confiscation. I think the scenario contemplated is very unlikely. If somebody is holed up in a Lexington home and refusing to comply with the law (including warrants and all that), then that person is a criminal in my book, and I certainly hope the police are able and willing to handle the situation.
It seems to be working in Highland Park. Did a google search for door to door gun searches and found zilch. Looks like you still need probable cause and a warrant to charge this particular crime, and that’s just fine.
I don’t recall hearing horror stories during my childhood back when these deadly weapons were banned leading to 33% reductions in their use in deadly gun crimes. No, we didn’t get all the criminals guns, but we got enough to dent homicides caused by these weapons by a 3rd. One can never stop crime or terrorism 100%, but we can work within the limits of the law and within reason and common sense to save lives and reduce fatalities.
That’s a fairly reasonable punishment all things considered.
I’d imagine there would be a time to get rid of them then you would still need a warrant.
I’m coming to appreciate your naysaying, because it seems to be in the spirit of intellectual honesty.
When the seatbelt law came to be, many people said cops woouldn’t enforce it. I’m not sure they do, even now. But people wear seatbelts.
I think the President has moved the needle on gun control. There’s a debate going on nationally about “smart guns” that can’t be fired by anyone other than their owners.
This is good. This is how change happens. We’re having a different type of debate. We’ve already moved on from “there’s nothing we can do.”
Will the needle keep moving? I hope so.
…were a key reason I supported Warren Tolman for AG.
but it was killed by the NRA and their Republican shills just like car seatbelts and medicine safety caps were.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
The technology, while it does exist, is extremely expensive. I would question whether it would pass constitutional muster when considering a “right to bear arms”, if the state passes a law making the expression of a constitutional right so expensive that an average citizen cannot do it. Think along the lines of a poll tax, or reading test to vote.
The other issue is dependability. A handgun is a precision-manufactured, mechanical device. Well-maintained (or if you own an AK, poorly maintained haha!) it will function with near perfect performance, assuming you don’t use crappy, cheap ammo. Once you start incorporating electronics, that dependability becomes suspect. Whether you want to admit it or not — there are many crimes that are prevented by citizens with concealed weapons, and to ask those people to give them something they carry to protect themselves that has electronics – a fickle mistress – is going to be a tough sell.
I dunno, Rich. Maybe this is a good opportunity for the Elon Musk of guns to come up with the answer so that we can replace the 300 million guns in this country with affordable, dependable models, and make a boatload of money.
if I’m a gun manufacturer like Colt or Smith-Wesson with smart safety technology why can’t I offer my product to the consumer ? Let the gun buyer decide. If they have young kids in the house they might pay a little more for the peace of mind, no ? I know I would.
The same conservatives who are blocking this claim to be liberty loving free enterprise capitalists. Bull Puckey !
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Due to the current price and state of technology of smart guns, there isn’t consumer demand.
My understanding, based on multiple sources including Mr. Obama’s recent words, is that the manufacturers were blocked by the NRA long before consumers got an opportunity to vote with their pocketbooks.
The buyers have NOT decided, the NRA decided.
It can’t call up S&W and say “you’re not allowed to make smart guns cuz we said so.” The fact that manufacture leadership is so under the thumb of a lobbying group is a reflection of leadership lacking in vision (no shocker a company like Colt had to file for bankruptcy)
If consumer demand called for smart guns, people who wanted to make money would produce the guns. The complaints from developers is they don’t have government grants to develop the tech beyond prototypes which are extremely expensive.
That’s why I think it’s going to come from someone, like I said downthread, who can independently finance the development of the weapon without having to get blessed by the NRA or even the government.
I will say the NRA has worked to stamp out consumer support for the technology. I’m not a member, nor will I be. But that won’t last forever. Someone is going to do it.
The military should do it. So many American arms have fallen into the hands of ISIL, if only American soldiers could fire them they wouldn’t be operable if the enemy captures them. That’s one massive consumer. The other is police forces, like body cameras, smart guns are one way technology can enforce greater accountability in those bodies. Another big consumer. If we can dump MRAPs on Mayberry we can force Mayberry and the military to buy smart guns.
The military has good reason to want this technology, have it affordable and effective.
You wrote: “[The NRA] can’t call up S&W and say ‘you’re not allowed to make smart guns cuz we said so.’ ”
Actually, it CAN and did, according to sites this this. Robert L. Stewart, CEO of Colt from 1996 to 1998, wrote an editorial (sorry, it’s behind the WSJ paywall) in the “American Firearms Industry” magazine advocating national gun registration. He was also championing the development of a chip-embedded gun (the Colt “Z40”) that fires only when it’s within close proximity to the designated shooter. The NRA didn’t like either.
According to various sources (including Barack Obama and the above cite), this editorial provoked a “huge backlash” against Stewart and Colt.
The hit-pieces began to circulate, and — surprise surprise — Mr. Stewart was no longer CEO and the Colt “smart gun” was dead.
According to the above piece, a similar fate befell Smith & Wesson after their 2001 agreement to research smart guns for the US government. From the first piece:
In fact, the NRA — owned and operated BY weapons manufacturers FOR weapons manufacturers — most certain CAN and DOES “call up [some manufacturer] and say ‘you’re not allowed to make smart guns cuz we said so’ “.
like the other gun manufacturers didn’t like the idea of competing with the smart gun technology and used the NRA as a means to shoot down the competitive advantage one of their competitors in the market would have by developing the tech.
Colt ended up going belly up. There hasn’t been significant technological developments in the gun industry, aside from the Kriss Super-V Bolt, in like 40 years. The NRA seems to be using its influence to maintain a status quo that will lead to stagnation, or to a 3rd party coming in and really disrupting their market. Kind of stupid.
Thank you for that.
According to NPR, Smith & Wesson was the firm that agreed to make smart guns during the Clinton years. The NRA boycotted them, and their stock took a big hit, and they supposedly nearly went out of business.
But, I do think whoaitsjoe has a point about consumer demand. Guns are expensive, and nobody wants to make them more expensive. Some people collect older guns, and those lose all their mystique if a clunky electronic device is attached.
And this comes back to how important the President’s effort is now. Technology is 20 years better, the gun environment 20 years worse.
It’s not that there isn’t consumer demand. How can you have consumer demand when you are not allowed by law to introduce your product onto the market ?
The NRA and their lapdog Republican shills in Congress are preventing gun manufacturers from offering consumers a safer gun.
And this is why the NRA cowards refused to debate the President. They live in a fearful, fact-averse bubble.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Technology changes, and it gets cheaper.
Mechanical devices are not more reliable than electronic devices. I assume you didn’t type this comment on an Underwood. Well maintained electronic devices are extremely reliable. They only fail when multiple devices are involved. (Your text message doesn’t get delivered because … I don’t know why. But your phone worked, sending it.) And ALL hardware fails eventually, so we have to consider that.
The Constitutional issue you raise is valid, though. I don’t think smart guns are the only answer. This is a slow walk to a new gun culture.
Just like wind, solar, and other forms of energy production are the eventual answer to fossil fuels. I feel the smart gun answer, though, is premature at this point. Kind of like if they said next year we can only have electric-only cars. It’s a nice thought, and definitely the endgame scenario, but it’s not there yet.
I do genuinely think there is going to be a person who decides to make the leap and develop an everyman version of a smart gun that will subsequently become very, very wealthy. I think the big manufacturers wont be the ones to do it, though, because of the implications of the technology becoming mainstream. That’s why I think of Elon Musk in this situation.
I hope someone does do that.
Tangentially … for some reason Elon Musk worries me a little. I think he and Jeff Bezos might turn out to be Bond villains.
Sometimes bad people have good ideas.
There is an explicit constitutional prohibition on a poll tax, but guns are a product that are sold to begin with. Nobody says they are coming for our cars because safety features are added that might jack up the price a bit. The other thing is that the constitution express calls for a well-regulated militia so requiring guns to be made a certain way for the purposes of a militia sounds like one reasonable way to regulate said militia.
We have a well-regulated militia (the National Guard). That militia keeps weapons on its premises. Members of that militia do not bring them home.
Nobody suggests that anybody has right to keep a loaded, fueled, and armed F-16 in their “back 40”, no matter how remote they live.
This language is an obsolete artifact of a bygone age. It should simply be retired, just as we retired the language about white male voting and about how Congress and the President are elected.
If the size of a hospitals room, the credentials of a doctor, and the availability of the service can be severely restricted so it’s expensive and only one or two clinics do it we could easily see that logic work towards guns and gun sellers. Local ordinances are in the works to prevent gun shops in communities and they largely use the same legal logic to block clinics from being in a community.
Not saying this will help our polarized country, I am saying there are plenty of constitutional rights that are made artificially expensive by government policies. Voting rights and access to fair justice are among the others.
compared to a right that is implied. Abortion is an implied right under the fourth amendment. The right to bear arms has its its own explicit amendment.
Today’s interpretation of the second amendment post-dates Roe V Wade. Until that mis-interpretation was promulgated, the second amendment was interpreted as the arcane and obsolete artifact it is.
The fact that large numbers of Americans willfully misread the text, and willfully ignore the interpretation of that text that held sway for most of the nation’s history does not in my view strengthen the claimed constitutional basis for that misreading.
In my view, the best long-term answer is a constitutional amendment that renders the Second Amendment moot. The main point of that amendment is a “well-regulated militia”. I have no clue what that means beyond the various police and military units that already exist.
I’m not a lawyer, I don’t even play one on television, and so my contribution is a new Constitutional Amendment that says the following:
“The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution is hearby repealed.”
I better at least get fair market value compensation.
If they didn’t, we’d be back in the jungle and, more to the point, the NRA wouldn’t be in such a desperate panic about them. Of course there will always be outlaws — there are still murders even though it’s been illegal since Moses, and armed gangs of criminals like Ammon Bundy et al, the Crips, the Bloods etc. will likely always be a problem — but the vast majority of the population respects the law by choice or fear of punishment.
Laws don’t work for drugs. Demand + proliferation + culture. No laws banning drugs will ever make them go away. Guns similarly have demand, incredible proliferation and a culture that breeds fanaticism without the advantage of physical dependence.
Culture is the most difficult aspect of this. America, as your know from your background in history, is so unique in many facets, one of which is our modern gun culture. The other issue is the way guns are codified in the highest law we hold, and the manner it is codified. “right to bear arms” and “militia”. Without arguing the semantics of grammar and what constitutes “militia”, The Constitution recognizes that gun ownership isn’t for hunting or stopping people from breaking into your house, but rather a bigger picture of defending one’s community.
Laws do work. But bad laws don’t. Bad laws get ignored. Laws that people think violate their civil rights get ignored.
Hmm. So, in your view, gun manufacturers are like crack producers. Interesting. I tend to agree, except of course that crack producers are illegal and don’t dominate our political processes with an industry organ called the “National Crack Association”.
There are many aspects of American culture that we have left behind. There was a time when the right to vote was limited to white male property owners. Thankfully, there was no analog to the NRA when America did away with those vestiges of medieval prejudice.
Lots of people in the South thought that laws banning racial segregation violated their civil rights. Lots of those people first ignored them, and then attempted to oppose federal authorities who “clarified” the situation for them.
America could stop or significantly slow the manufacture of guns whenever we choose. America could force gun registration and titles to be tracked by manufacturers in the same way we track vehicle registrations. America could change our gun laws so that the last legal owner of a weapon was held responsible for any criminal acts done with that weapon (unless the weapon was reported stolen or lost).
The absurdity of “our modern gun culture” is insane, and defending it as some sort of inalienable right is ludicrous.
“Our modern gun culture” is badly and pathologically BROKEN. We need to fix it.
NOW.
Over 75% of people who end up addicted to opiates, especially heroin, which is more of a problem in MA than crack, start on illegally acquired, legal prescription medication. Why do so many people get prescribed these meds? Because Pharma makes billions of dollars off of it. Who stops the government from meaningfully acting on this? Lobby groups representing big pharma.
We have previously discussed this point, and you have been educated this already occurs in Massachusetts. I would support this being a federal act.
Also, I don’t know where you think I’m defending gun culture. My whole point is that in 2016, confiscation isn’t going to work for many reasons. It’s the wrong way to change the direction we’re going in. The fixation on taking them away – such as this law in IL, fuels the deranged and sometimes paranoid NRA. Although, when you see politicians pushing confiscation, it doesn’t seem to be paranoid, but rather the bogeyman the NRA told you was coming.
Gun culture needs to change. But it will have to change like any other culture will. It won’t change through government mandate, although it can certainly push that direction WITHOUT putting law enforcement in a position where they’re getting tore down through in a hail of bullets because old man Jones doesn’t want the gubmint taking away his guns.
Regarding registration and titles, I am of course talking about an automated nationwide system. I’m glad we agree on the need for this at the federal level.
I guess we simply disagree about confiscation. As far as I’m concerned, I think we SHOULD take away the guns. I think a majority of Americans agree with me.
I also disagree with you about how the change in “gun culture” can be accomplished. We’ve dramatically reduced the death toll on our highways through government mandate. We’ve dramatically reduced the death toll from tobacco through government mandate. We’ve made enormous progress in a number of fronts through government mandate (flouridated water was another right-wing canard for decades, and is an example of a major public health success. I think that the government mandate can and must reduce the toll of gun violence.
Finally, this bogeyman of “old man Jones” who “doesn’t want the gubmint taking away his guns” is a red herring. Mr. Jones, in this scenario, is a common criminal — no different from any other heavily-armed drug lord, gang lord, or organized crime figure. Our current law enforcement agencies are surely capable of handling this scenario. After the millions of dollars spent on training and weapons, if they are NOT able to handle this scenario then “old man Jones” is not the issue.
These people, in your mind, are common criminals – fine. But in their view, its an oppressive government that is taking away their rights without due process. These people are not uncommon. These yahoos in Oregon are just the tip of the iceberg, but it’s not an iceberg anyone is worried we’re going to hit because the government ISN’T trying to take away their guns. If they did, in earnest, it would be bad, Tom. I don’t know how insular you lead your life in regards to interacting with that crowd and your experience with them, but from mine, I can tell you it would be bad.
34% of American households have guns. That leaves you with 2/3 of the country to sway. You’re telling me that there are that many people who support CONFISCATION? No way, jose. We’d be up shit creek without a paddle if we even had to elect the president on a national popular vote, this country is so evenly divided sometimes. A very extreme solution, such as nationwide confiscation, is not something that a majority of americans support.
which is one of the many reasons I am supporting his Democratic challenger, Jen Migliore, in the 9th Essex District ( Lynn, Saugus, Wakefield ).
All progressives should check out their Rep’s rating and vote accordingly.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
The pledge not to support or campaign for any pro-gun Democrats should be adopted by our nominee as well, and I might add, in races where an pro-gun Dem is running against an anti-gun Republican it would make sense to back the Republican. The only way the next Congress and the next President will be able to pass this legislation is if there is sufficient pressure on the Democrats who helped kill universal background checks and some carrots to the Republicans that voted for them. We need to get to 61, and this is a key issue to force into house races as well.
Morning Edition had a heartbreaking story about one reporter who realized he knew the young man and the tragic dots he connected.
I absolutely believe every effort to take guns off these streets will save lives. But remember that the reality is, most of these guns are already purchased on the black market, and it is the drug war and our lack of investment in these communities that is primarily driving these numbers up.
I want to avoid restarting the either/or debate I’ve had with people here on this subject. I will just add, absolutely work to get guns off the streets, but we also have to approach the cause of gun violence holistically and look at ways to bring the suicide rate and inner city homicide rate down in tandem with efforts to take guns off the streets. And we can do that by addressing many of the causes at the root long before they grow into an angry or sad person with access to a gun.
The PRESIDENT said this?
That is amazing.
And if we can get the Clinton’s to pledge the same thing, we can actually start to see the needle move on this issue. In the short term it will contribute to continues democratic minorities and polarized approaches to this issue, but in the long run, as the GOP will have to win Senate and House seats in blue states to survive, we will see more and more Republicans step up to embrace the issue.
It is now highly unlikely a Republican could get elected in the suburban counties of Chicagoland without running on gun control rather than against it. It’s a key pitch in the early ads Mark Kirk and Bob Dold are running out here, as is their support for continued Planned Parenthood funding. Something to look at if the GOP tries to keep Richard Hanna’s seat or take Steve Israel’s in the NYC area for the same reason.
The core message of the NRA- sometimes explicit and sometimes lurking in the background – is that lawful gunowners should fear the government coming and confiscating their guns.
Although I agree with those who say it is absolutely possible to enforce laws requiring certain weapons to be gradually taken off the street (possibly through buyback programs), the real point here was made by President Obama: it is absurd to think that the government would or could confiscate hundreds of millions of guns.
This is probably why the NRA did not show up to the meeting. They were too smart to show up to be confronted directly by President Obama about this core fiction at the center of their fundraising techniques.