I have been on vacation for 2 weeks, missed the rallies, but I just sent this to the Ways and Means Committee, cc'd the Public Safety Committee (there is some overlap), DeLeo, my reps, and the folks at GOAL the following email. I'm going to call Ways and Means people today.
Honorable Members of the House Ways and Means Committee:
I’m writing you to urge you to vote Ought Not to Pass on H.4121, An Act relative to the reduction of gun violence.
I’m sure like many citizens of the Commonwealth, my fundamental political philosophy regarding Civil and Natural Rights which the Founders documented in the Bill of Rights differs from many other citizens of the Commonwealth, their elected officials (maybe many of you), and probably Speaker DeLeo’s. On the morality of usurpation of Rights from citizens by Government under the guise of benefiting “the Greater Good”, I can agree to disagree with others. However, it’s clear that with regards to denying citizens their Second Amendment rights, the de facto philosophy by which the Government may or may not usurp those Rights is encompassed simply in the clause, “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. In a Liberal Democracy, the rights of individuals are sacrosanct, and not to be sacrificed to the will of any majority.
With that perspective on political philosophy, my opinion is that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts does not need more laws infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens, which is all this new proposed bill does. Specifically, the following items are particularly onerous:
1) Suitability. The delegation to anyone of subjective control over which citizens can and can’t possess a concealed handgun (or a rifle or shotgun, if this bill is passed) is unconscionable given the 5th Amendment protections of due process. Anyone in a position of power and control assuming that a citizen will or even has the potential to commit a crime is one of the most egregious breaches of our Civil Liberties. Rights of individuals can only be forfeited BY THEIR OWN CRIMINAL ACTIONS for which they are convicted, not by the OPINION of anyone regardless of their position in Society. Suitability should be removed from all existing and proposed laws, and only the definition of a prohibited person (someone whose past actions lead to the forfeiture of their rights) should be considered.
2) New convictions in the definition of Prohibited Persons. Given that suitability should not be the basis for the denial of a Constitutional Right, past convictions in a court of law of crimes that lead to the forfeiture of one’s Civil Rights has been and should continue to be the only, objective measure by which one can be denied their Civil Rights. That said, deviating from Federally established criteria used to classify someone as a prohibited person by expanding the list of misdemeanors to include those punishable by 1 or more years in prison, crimes such as shoplifting (under $100) is unnecessary and an abuse of Constitutionally guaranteed Civil Rights by the State Government. This precedent of deeming fewer and fewer citizens eligible to exercise their Constitutionally guaranteed Civil Rights can not be set, lest we have the disarmament of citizens because of civil infractions like parking tickets, their political affiliations, education, or even Religion.
3) Banning the private sale of firearms from licensed individual to licensed individual. MA residents who are issued FID/LTC permits are among the most highly vetted individuals in the Commonwealth. There is no reason to change the already restrictive laws regarding private sales. In MA, there is no “gun show loophole”, and in my opinion, this is just political posturing for the gun control advocates to declare some victory by solving a mythical problem in MA.
4) Inventorying firearms by legal firearm owners. In addition to the adverse implications of what registration would mean to law abiding firearm owners if the information got into the wrong hands (such as activist journalists like those in the metro NYC area last year who published the home addresses of concealed carry permit holders), there is no mitigation of the threat of illegal gun violence by having a registry of legally owned firearms.
5) Granting the Attorney General even more power over which common use firearms can be legally transferred in MA is nothing but harassment of law abiding gun owners in MA. Those that deal in illegal arms sales do not pay attention to the list. This provision of the law is simply an end-run around legislative bans and serves only to deny those who abide by the law.
In conclusion, nothing in this bill addresses criminal gun violence or mental health issues related to public safety (which isn’t solely a firearms issue, as mentally ill people can access many, many unregulated items which can bring about harm to themselves or others). Our society does, indeed, have a violence problem, perpetrated by criminals and the severely mentally ill, but firearms are not the root cause. Punishing free, sane, and responsible citizens by denying their Constitutionally guaranteed Civil and Natural Rights will not solve a societal violence problem, and the Speaker’s bill is primarily a political action to appease people who are indifferent to Liberty and Civil Rights, who perceive legislative action as securing their safety from nefarious elements of society. This punishment of law abiding citizens for the not-yet-committed actions of criminals and the severely mentally ill is by definition, infringement.
Please vote Ought Not to Pass on H.4121.