Massachusetts Joint Committee on the Judiciary H.2290
February 27, 2008
Massachusetts Joint Committee on the Judiciary
State House
Room 136 / 413C
Boston, MA 02133
Chariman Creedon and Chairman O’Flaherty, and members of the Committee,
The Norfolk County League of Sportsmen’s Clubs, consisting of 11 individual Sportsmen’s & Women’s clubs with over 5,000 members, is submitting this letter in strong opposition to
H.2290 “An Act Relative To Gun Use” filed by Representative Antonio F. D. Cabral, Senator Mark C. Montigny and others.
Section 121 of Chapter 140 was debated and discussed by the legislature at the time of its introduction and these exemptions were placed into law on October 22, 1998 for the reason of alignment with the Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The legislature, at that time, followed the lead of the Federal Government with respect to grandfathering in firearms and devices by using the starting date of the Federal ban. Today, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30) contains: “Subsec. (a)(30). Pub. L. 103-322, Sec. 110102(b), which added par. (30) defining "semiautomatic assault weapon", was repealed by Pub. L. 103-322, Sec. 110105(2)”. Therefore, U.S.C no longer contains any definition of a “semiautomatic assault weapon”, yet Massachusetts has chosen to adopt a now repealed definition as State law. Had these firearms not been made exempt the Federal Government at that time, it would have been viewed as instituting an unconstitutional confiscation program of these so-called “Assault Weapons” and it would have been rejected by the public. Now, 10 years later, the authors of this bill are attempting to do exactly that.
The law-abiding Sportsmen and Women and citizens of Massachusetts are often told – trust us – “This new law, will do more to reduce crime.” “This new law will further reduce gun violence in the Commonwealth.” Yet, time and time again, the noose gets tighten as we walk down that slippery slope toward a total firearms ban/confiscation (unsuccessful in 1976) and yet we are constantly told there is no “slippery slope”. Meanwhile, no evidence is ever presented that the previous “new law” reduced crime here in the Commonwealth when – in fact – there is mounting evidence that indeed the opposite holds true.
The effect of this law as it was written in 1998 singularly created a market for firearms and large capacity feeding devices that were lawfully possessed prior to September 13, 1994. This caused the value of these firearms to increase significantly and (for those able to afford them) pay heavily to acquire them, whether that be for investment purposes in the newly legislated market or for all lawful purposes as defined under M.G.L. In some cases these individual firearms are now worth in excess of $15,000.00.
H.2290 would destroy this same market by making it impossible for anyone to sell these firearms to anyone other than a local club. Worse this bill attempts to include “(ii) any weapon that is operated by manual bolt, pump, lever or slide action;” which would effectively mean a long-gun ban, no matter the ammunition capacity, as every single long-gun manufactured in the world is operated by one of these methods. This would include the very popular Ruger 10-22 .22 caliber rifle that holds 10 rounds of ammunition.
We are sure that the supporters of this bill will raise the December 12, 2006 incident at the New Bedford, Foxy Lady strip club involving Scott Medeiros. From the various Associated Press articles that we’ve read he was in legal possession of a firearm, but it is unknown to us whether that firearm was a “Pre-Ban” or “Post-Ban” firearm or whether or not he was in possession of or used large capacity magazines during that assault killing three. Repeated phone calls to the Bristol County District Attorney’s office to provide the exact make, model, feeding capacity and ammunition type used have gone unanswered – yet you being asked to believe their testimony without any real evidence being presented. In fact, when speaking to the DA’s Director of Communications Gregg Miliote asking the DA to provide such details he said quote “It was probably some kind of machine gun.”, which would most likely be entirely inaccurate fear mongering by the DA’s office.
H.2290 also attempts to, unconstitutionally, redefine a Class A LTC after such licensees have been operating under such law for over 10 years by stripping away the right to possess “assault weapons” which may have been owned or possessed prior to the September 13, 1994 date for any lawful purpose including hunting. Clearly, Section 131 of Chapter 140 which already states that “No large capacity weapon or large capacity feeding device shall be removed from the premises except for the purposes of:” was ignored by Scott C. Medeiros. What makes New Bedford Police Chief Ronald E. Teachman, Bristol County DA C. Samuel Sutter, New Bedford Mayor Scott W. Lang believe that changing the existing law would have stopped Mr. Medeiros from committing this crime as it already made illegal his actions?
H.2290 is a discriminatory law aimed solely at the law-abiding Sportsmen and Women and citizens of Massachusetts as it can only affect those who obey the law. As such, it is clear, that this bill will have no affect on the criminal misuse of any firearm under M.G.L or “Further Reduce Gun Violence in the Commonwealth” because by definition the law-abiding do not commit these crimes.
In the Scott Medeiros case, the legislature must realize that the world is not a safe place no matter how hard we try to protect the public under the law. Personal safety is and always has been proven to be – an individual responsibility. (1, 2)
We urge the Committee to consider an unfavorable vote to prevent bringing this legislation to the floor of the House and Senate. A vote against this legislation is simply a vote of confidence in the law-abiding Sportsmen and Women and citizens of the Commonwealth who have already gone through a lengthy, costly and burdensome licensing process to prove their unparalleled character.
Respectfully submitted,
1 Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the court ruled, 7-2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman's three children by her estranged husband.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales
2 Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981) ``fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.''