In the wake of any tragedy, there is always a call to "do something" to avert further tragedy. While that reaction is understandable, the "something" is frequently poorly planned, ineffective, and infringing of others rights. Prior to New York's passage of the SAFE act this month, Massachusetts had the strictest or second most strict firearms laws in the nation. We also have some of the most confusing laws and the highest monetary barriers to proper education, which combine to result in large amounts of misinformation, unfounded fear, and reactionary proposals.
One of the most common pieces of misinformation encountered was published in your January 18th edition on page 3:
"The latter category is generally seen to be rifles that have high capacity magazines and are able to fire in “full-auto” mode (a single trigger pull releases multiple bullets, potentially including the entire magazine in a few seconds), or can be illegally modified to do so. Such weapons were generally designed for the military, although semi-automatic versions that look very similar are available on the civilian market. For example, the Army M-16’s civilian version is called the AR-15."
That category, "assault weapons," - a term manufactured in the decade prior to the introduction of the 1994 Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act - specifically does not include automatic weapons.
Current proposals miss the fact that the category is among the least likely to be used to commit a crime, a fact which the US Department of Justice and the National Institue of Justice mentioned in their 2004 report (
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf) which stated "Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. [Assault weapons] were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban."
Also contributing to the confusion and the fear that gun owners have is the fact that the definition has been changed on multiple occasions, with little to no evidence supporting the changes, and frequently with little understanding of the cosmetic and functional features being banned. Since the passage of the SAFE Act in the state of New York, the M1 Garand - the collectible WWII-era rifle distributed by the US federal government under the Civilian Marksmanship Program, commonly used for competition and hunting of large game - is now considered an "assault weapon" due to the 8-round internal magazine and the piece of wood installed over the barrel to prevent the operator from inadvertently burning his or her hand. Indeed, the definitions are broad enough and frequently enough changed that many people who own firearms will find themselves forced to turn in heirlooms and the tools with which they hunt and compete.
The argument that it is simple to complete an illegal modification of a semi-automatic firearm defined as an assault weapon into an effective automatic firearm is also largely fiction. The parts required to safely do so require precision machining methods and properly hardened metals.
While confusing to anyone attempting firearms ownership in a legal manner, the current laws of Massachusetts are more than sufficient to provide for arrest and incarceration of any that commit violent acts against others. One of many, MGL 269 s. 10, provides for a mandatory 18 month sentence upon conviction for unlicensed possession of a firearm, but is rarely if ever prosecuted. Only if the courts see to it that violent criminals are prevented from further attacks on the public will these laws be effective.
So what is true about what have recently been termed assault weapons? The Department of Homeland Security has described these firearms as "suitable for personal defense use in close quarters" (
https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=09c3d5e933bc24416b752b57294a17b3) and the Massachusetts Municipal Police Training Committee finds them to be "a superior tool," which will allow greater safety due to the fact that the 5.56mm/.223 caliber round "will penetrate fewer walls than service pistol rounds or 12 gauge slugs" (
http://www.mlefiaa.org/files/MPTC_NEWS/Patrol_Rifle_Student_Manual_2010.pdf). They're light, easy to control safely, adjustable (a great advantage when teaching proper safety and use), and comprise a majority percentage of firearms sold within the United States.
With that said, firearms ownership is a Constitutionally protected right, right along with freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to be secure in our homes and belongings. Firearms owners are your neighbors, friends, coworkers, and family. Your doctors, lawyers, firefighters, paramedics, teachers, and the guy who runs the corner store own firearms. We don't own them for the purpose of killing innocents; we own them for sport, hunting, and defense. Before rushing to ban an entire category of firearm, please find one of us and have an honest conversation about the purpose of our ownership.
Michael Baxter
Charlton
