Here is a follow up email to a phone conversation I had with Representative Haggarty. He called me back after I left a message with his aide last week and was open minded and genuine. I think he was surprised by some of the things I brought up. He was patient and respectful to me so I tried to be in return. Bring on the haters who think I was to polite and didn't hit him hard enough. Sometimes the message gets lost if the delivery is to loud.
Representative Haggerty,
I want to thank you for calling me back and spending time with me on the phone yesterday. We spoke for over 40 minutes, and we covered a lot of topics in the proposed bill. As I stated I believe the idea of the bill is to keep illegal firearms and long guns out of the hands of those who are not licensed to own them. This bill does not speak to that goal and should be rethought. To that end I will highlight some of the topics that we spoke about yesterday.
Number of active firearm licenses and Training requirements
Data about firearms licensing and transactions
I said there were around 600,000 licenses in Massachusetts you said you were told there were about 100,000. The accurate number is
541,956. This data can be found at Mass.gov link about and I exported an Excel spread sheet of the data for you study. In fact, there over 2200 licensees in Woburn. Roughly 10% of the adult population of the City has a firearms license. This bill would affect every one of them.
With this number and the wording of Section 56 live fire requirement there is no infrastructure in Mass. to support this requirement. The bill proposes anyone who has an FID or LTC dating back to June 1, 1998 is exempt from the live fire requirement. That is a small proportion of license holders and growing smaller every day. That means that roughly 100,000 live fire tests need to be conducted and documented the first year this bill goes into effect. This would grind the licensing process to a halt. Which is what I fear is the intent of this section.
Also, under training the idea that an LTC holder should be required to participate in police style active shooter training is not well thought out and should be deleted.
Minors with firearms
As you can see below this specifically mentions rifles and shotguns not pistols or revolvers. The pistol team at Mass Rifle and all others across the state would be adversely affected by this section.
1531 A person may furnish a minor under the age of 18 with a firearm for hunting,
1532 instruction and participation in shooting sports and a minor under the age of 15 with a rifle or
1533 shotgun for hunting or target shooting, provided that the minor is under the immediate
1534 supervision of a person holding a license to carry or long gun permit, or a duly commissioned
1535 officer, noncommissioned officer or enlisted member of the united states army, navy, marine
1536 corps, air force or coast guard, or the national guard or military service of the commonwealth or
1537 reserve components thereof, while in performance of their duty.
Assault Weapon vs Assault-Style
I want to state that I do not agree with the definition of any firearm with the term assault weapon this redefinition is very problematic. It basically renders any semi-automatic rile or shotgun into an assault style weapon. An example that I mentioned yesterday is the Ruger 10/22. It is very common to swap out the stock and install a thumb hole stock to add stability for shooting. This changes nothing about the rate of fire or what is fired.
Barrel Shroud – Every rifle stock extends forward of the receiver so that the shooters hand does not meet the hot barrel. What is the definition of a barrel shroud?
For a further discussion I will draw on an analysis of the proposed bill HD4420 that the Massachusetts Office of Public Safety asked Retired Police Chief Ron Glidden to undertake. I have attached his full analysis to this email. It is long but I hope you will read it.
“Having a “list” of designated weapons plus a features test, plus a similarity and interchangeability test complicates both enforcement and voluntary compliance. There should be just one definition based on characteristics observable and easy to understand for both law enforcement and the owner.”
Feeding device serialization – Section 48
No manufacture serializes feeding devices. Therefore, you are asking current owners to serialize their magazines and enbloc clips. The bill states that the depth of the engraving must be 3/16” of an inch. How do I do that? What is the number supposed to be. If I can’t engrave it who can? By now defining a magazine or feeding device as a “firearm” it can only be handled by the owner or a licensed FFL. FFL’s who provide engraving service are few and far between. Plus, with this requirement no manufacturer will ship a magazine to Mass as the industry is not going to change to accommodate the small market that Massachusetts represents.
I fear I have gone on too long already and have not even touched on the prohibitive space clause and the locking requirements for UPS and FedEx so will end here by restating the idea of the bill is to keep illegal firearms and long guns out of the hands of those who are not licensed to own them. This bill does not speak to that goal and should be rethought. Again, drawing on Ron Glidden’s analysis
“We applaud the crafters of this Bill for their zeal in attempting to do something about the trend of
violence we are seeing by persons illegally using firearms. We know their intentions are good. Their goals
noble. However, the scope of HD 4420 is so widespread and far reaching that many of the proposed
sections simply cannot be accomplished, or in many cases, enforced. We need to focus on legislation,
cooperatively developed by the noted key players, that will truly have a real-world impact on those who
use firearms to commit crimes and acts of violence. After considerable review, we find that HD 4420 is
too problematic as written to realistically accomplish this goal at this time.”
Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have and again thank you for spending your time on the phone with me yesterday.
![[wave]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/011.gif "Wave [wave]")
