Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security
Massachusetts State House
Boston, MA 02133
To the Honorable Committee Members:
Thank you for holding a public hearing on Tuesday June 3[SUP]rd[/SUP]. I was the last person called to speak on the bill to conclude the hearing around 9:00pm.
I am writing
in opposition as written to most provisions in Speaker DeLeo’s gun control bill
H.4121 “An Act Relative to the Reduction of Gun Violence”
I agree with the GOAL analysis available here:
http://www.goal.org/goal-response-may-30-2014.html
I urge you to oppose H.4121 unless it is significantly altered to remove the offending sections.
[Who I am removed...]. Recent tragedies have no doubt caused us all to question whether new laws are in order. However, I will tell you that our “gun-free zone” workplaces do not make us safer, and in fact makes our campuses targets for someone intending mass murder. We cannot even carry pepper spray to protect ourselves due to the current onerous laws.
Specifically regarding H.4121, while there are some sections that I support such as bringing MA in compliance with NICS, school resource officers, and support for mental health, many of the provisions are simply harassment of law-abiding gun owners that will have no effect on crime.
Section 18 would ban private sales. Currently private sales can only be conducted between two people who have valid MA firearms licenses and therefore have already undergone background checks. Section 18 would require a fee to be paid for every firearm transfer. A father handing down a cherished firearm to a son would now be subject to transfer fees, for example. This feel-good provision will do nothing to stop people who already break the law, and only serve to harass legal firearms owners. I hear the people who suggested that the background check completed during licensing may be out of date. A simple solution could be to require the E-FA10 be completed during the sale before the transfer is completed, possibly via a smartphone app. Alternatively, a 2 step process of verifying a current license before proceeding with a transfer could address these concerns.
Section 41 would unreasonably increase penalties for anybody who strays over an invisible property line of a school. How can you justify ruining someone’s life for crossing an invisible line, especially when school properties are often the home of hiking trails?
Sections 19 and 26 propose that an unelected body define who is “suitable” to possess a firearm. We should not leave the decision of who gets fundamental civil rights up to such a body. I prefer this definition: if you are not prohibited by federal law from possessing a firearm, you shall be issued a MA license. This section also proposes to prohibit licenses to anybody convicted of a misdemeanor with a
potential penalty greater than one year. Drawing in a library book could now prohibit you from owning firearms. Non-violent crimes should not prevent you from your fundamental rights of self-defense.
Section 4 proposes to make teachers responsible for mental health of students and their families. While I applaud the concept, the implementation could dramatically increase teacher stress and burnout. This is also potentially an unfunded mandate that would burden town school systems.
When proposing to restrict rights, you need to identify the achievable gain by enacting only effective laws. The evidence presented at the hearing shows that these proposed laws are not effective.
Repeat violent offenders commit the most violent crime. This bill does nothing to address that. We heard touching testimony about the cycles of violence that perpetuate urban areas. A woman who lost her husband. A mother who cannot let her son walk anywhere in their own neighborhood. We heard about the disparities between the “two Massachusetts” – one where millions of dollars flow to help the victims of the Marathon bombings, yet the victims of urban violence are ignored. We need real solutions like community policing, jobs programs, and youth programs that will end the cycles of violence.
A recent study in the City of Boston found that youth with jobs were much less likely to be involved in violence of any kind. The study and story are available here:
·
http://www.cityofboston.gov/images_documents/CLMS_Research_Paper_tcm3-39574.pdf
·
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...ne-violence/Ij5VGwIx2EeuXukTwm4RAI/story.html
This is supposed to be a
comprehensive bill? If so, you have a duty to analyze the failure of your past efforts and remove ineffective legislation. Instead, this bill threatens me with prosecution for
pretended offenses.
There is often talk of compromise and reasonable actions. I propose the following reasonable amendments:
- Repeal the Assault Weapons Ban. MGL Ch. 140 Sec. 131M.
o Cars are dangerous. Imagine banning adjustable car seats, mufflers, and leather wrapped steering wheels. Ridiculous? The AWB does exactly this – it makes firearms LESS SAFE. Even Representative Linsky agrees:
“In my view, the only difference between a legal, large capacity rifle and a grandfathered assault weapon or banned assault weapon are cosmetics, so in my view they will be treated the same.” (Metrowest Daily News, 1/17/2013).
- Shall issue licenses unless you are prohibited person or proven unsuitable in a court/hearing
- Remove the EOPS/AG approved firearm roster requirements.
- Reciprocity with licenses in compatible states.
I understand how things work in Massachusetts. However, you have a duty to address the issues with this bill or otherwise oppose its passage as written. Your colleagues may not even read the bill, you must convince them. This issue is too important to trade away behind a closed door meeting.
Sincerely,
[JJ4]
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
