For those of you still fighting for gun rights in Massachusetts, I'd like to talk for a second about strategy. I realized early on that there are not enough gun owners to elect any single candidate. But there
are enough gun owners to
keep someone for being elected. And gun owners from outside Boston can contribute to keep the candidates least in tune to gun legislation off the final ballot.
With a dozen candidates it's not hard to find someone who is close to any candidate and to have a serious conversation with them - often with the candidate directly. Based on track record and conversations, my feeling was that John Connelly and Marty Walsh were the two candidates that were the most reasonable and open-minded on the issue. Two of the candidates that looked to be most opposed to 2A were Dan Conley and Mike Ross.
I've had very respectful conversations with staff members of both Conley and Ross in which I explained that "My friends and I" thought their policies on guns were unfair to lawful gun owners and ineffective in fighting violent crime: and that as a result, we would not be voting for them and in fact contributing o multiple other candidates to insure they did not make the "Finals." But this has been done in a manner that can keep the conversation going.
I gave one of Conley's associates a list of his proposals and the opinions of many legal gun owners, explaining they were unfair, unworkable, unlikely to reduce crime, or all three. And then explained that I thought he was a hard-working and honest man but that I would not be voting for him, and had in fact contributed to several other candidates whose views on this matter were more in line with what I thought were fair, reasonable and effective.
We also wrote Mike Ross, thanking him for his service on the City Council, and noting that [many] of his proposals were unworkable, unfair and likely ineffective.
Now, there are no shortage of fatalists here who don't think change can happen. But
all change happens two ways: gradually and then subtly. If you don't think change is possible, after listening to Mayor Menino's testimony, listen to City Councilor John Connelly's response to a direct question about the Navy Yard shooting.
Bob Oakes: Following the Washington Navy Yard shooting this week we’ve all been reminded about how big an issue gun violence is across America and Boston is certainly no exception. We’ve had our fair of it share here. You’ve talked about how community policing and a gun buy-back program will be parts of your plan to tackle the problem. But those alone won’t solve it, so what else?
Connelly: I think that we need a holistic plan for a comprehensive safe and healthy Boston initiative. And that means as much about law enforcement, as much about gun violence prevention, talking about how we’re going to deal with recovery, how we’re going to deal with mental health, how we’re going to deal with trauma, and making sure that when people need to get help, we can get them that help.
And right now in Boston if you’re battling addiction there’s no guarantee you can get to a recovery home or facility when you need it. We have resources most cities can only dream of, and we have got to work together to find a better way to leverage resources to everyone in Boston. I want to create an office of recovery services that will focus strictly on trying to expand the recovery infrastructure out there. I also want to connect that to mental health services and to trauma services.
Anyone notice what he
doesn't say?.
No mayor of Boston is going to be mistaken for Charlton Heston. But what we can earn is a place at the table when violent crime is being discussed. Even some of the most "progressive" politicians in Boston have now started to realize that more and more gun laws have done
nothing to make Boston safer. They are looking for other ways that will actually work. Gradually (too damned gradually in my opinion) the businessmen, veterans, law enforcement officers and sportsmen that make up the body of gun owners are starting to have a voice.
We won't be strong enough any time soon to win any elections, at least in eastern Mass. But we sure as hell can decide who
loses as was the case with Stephen Lynch.
And for those of you who have given up and moved: nothing would say "FU" more than letting candidates like Dan Conley or Mike Ross or others know you can't vote in Boston but helped their defeat nonetheless by contributing to others. It could be a token contribution. - $10 or $25 - but will help turn up the volume of our voice.