Who Cares: Taking aim at gun control

[LoginName]

For your reading pleasure and commentary...

Who Cares: Taking aim at gun control
By Joe Burns
Wed Aug 06, 2008, 02:25 PM EDT

CAPE COD -

Last week police confiscated a small arsenal of illegal guns, ammunition and other assorted weapons from the Marstons Mills home of Kenneth Webster. On July 1 police also removed several guns and knives that had been on his person and in his car. In total, more than 50 weapons were taken from Webster including a sawed-off shotgun, an M14 automatic rifle and a sniper rifle.

When he was arrested on July 1 Webster reportedly told police that he had a constitutional right to own those guns. If that sounds scary, here's something scarier. There are a lot of people out there who agree with him.

Second Amendment literalists have long held that the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" means just that. Using that interpretation, it would appear that Webster would be within his rights to own as many handguns, shotguns, and automatic weapons as he wished even though there was a restraining order against him.

That interpretation seemed to be strengthened by a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that found a Washington, D.C. law forbidding private ownership of handguns unconstitutional. But that ruling was narrowly focused and didn't rule out the right of states to regulate gun ownership.

Not all pro-gun groups are as fundamentalist in their interpretation of the Second Amendment. The Amendment II Democrats, a self described "informal confederation of liberal, progressive, moderate, and conservative Democrats and like-minded individuals who are dedicated to fighting for a free and armed America" believes that "to remove all gun legislation from the books is to invite anarchy."

Although that sounds like the makings of a sensible approach that would allow responsible, law-abiding adults to own a handgun for defense and a shotgun and rifle for hunting, it isn’t.

In 2004 the South Florida Sun-Sentinel published an editorial arguing against the private ownership of assault weapons saying they weren't needed for home protection or hunting, and that their only use was "to commit murder and mayhem on a massive scale." The A2D responded that rights of ownership aren't determined by need. Which is a roundabout way of saying that having one, two or 10 assault weapons is OK.

Gun laws vary from state to state and so I called the Gun Owners' Action League (GOAL), which bills itself as the official firearms association of Massachusetts, to try and find out what their views were on unlicensed guns and having someone turn their home into an armory. But Angela Fisher, the organization's director of communications, wasn't into communicating, and said I needed to speak with Jim Wallace, the executive director, who wasn't available.

I was told that Wallace was at the State House that week. I imagine he was there to lobby against House bill 3991 "An Act to Reduce Gun Violence," a legislative proposal filed by Gov. Deval Patrick. The intent of the bill is to slow the flow of illegal weapons that make their way on to Massachusetts’ streets. One of the provisions of the bill would be to limit gun dealers to the sale of one rifle, shotgun, firearm, machine gun, large capacity weapon or large capacity feeding device to any one buyer within a 30-day period.

The purpose of that restriction is to hamper "straw purchasers" who buy guns for people unable to obtain a gun permit. Limiting sales would help to cut down on the number of illegal guns on the streets of our cities and towns and the crimes that are committed by those wielding these weapons. GOAL has been trying to stop that bill from even being considered.

In a letter sent to members of the Joint Committee on the Judiciary, Wallace referred to the bill as the "Lawful Citizen Imprisonment Act" and argued that by limiting the number of guns that lawful gun owners could purchase at any one time the bill was taking the position that lawful gun owners are responsible for the illegal gun trade.

"How would that deter crime?" Wallace asked. "The criminals committing gun related crimes do not go through the proper channels to get licensed and purchase guns legally, so changing the law will not affect them or gun related crime. The law-abiding citizens of the Commonwealth should not be punished for the actions of criminals."

Of course not having a law simply because criminals will break the law and law-abiding people won't argues against having any law, but the point is moot. GOAL succeeded in its goal, Patrick's bill never made it out of committee.

Some will say that even if the bill had already been law it wouldn't have prevented Webster from obtaining his illegal weapons, since it appears that at least a portion of them were purchased in Maine. Others will note that Webster hadn't used those weapons to commit a crime.

But there are a lot of illegal guns out there. And somewhere, sometime, some crime that might have been prevented by that bill will take place. A life that could have been saved will be lost and a family that was whole will be shattered. And that was never the goal of the creators of our Constitution.

http://www.wickedlocal.com/bourne/n...665952386/Who-Cares-Taking-aim-at-gun-control

 

[Admin]

What an Idiot...

 

[doobie]

Somewhere, some crime was stopped by a lawful gun owner unable to wait minutes for 911 to answer their plea for help. But they should have let themselves fall victim to the crime so that guns could be removed from the streets.

 

[Jake L]

Not so pleasurable!

 

[Bob P]

OK, this pissed me off enough that I actually went through the process of registering to leave a comment on that piece of crap, wrote it and keep getting the message 'unable to process comment'

Here's my comment below. I plan on sending it to the paper as an email.

Your argument that House Bill 3991 was opposed on the grounds that ‘criminals will break the law and law-abiding people won’t’ is disingenuous; Bill 3991 was opposed due to the complete lack of any evidence that the so-called ‘straw purchases’ of guns in any way contribute to the number of illegal guns in the Commonwealth. The current Massachusetts gun laws require the registration of all legally purchased guns. This means the serial number of the gun is matched in the State Police database to the name, address and fingerprints of the purchaser.

If the purchaser illegally passes one of these guns on to someone else, there is a very easy way to trace the gun back to the person who purchased it and hold that person responsible for his or her illegal actions. Bill 3991 simply added additional restrictions to law-abiding gun-owners without impacting the problem of illegal guns in the Commonwealth. Perhaps Governor Patrick should be doing something about the root causes of violent crime in Massachusetts rather then adding yet another law to the books that further restricts the rights of her law-abiding citizens without making them safer.

 

[Chris]

Don't forget that a 'straw' making purchases for illegal transfers will buy in larger quantity. By putting into effect a "one gun a month" regulation, the straw purchases will now look just like any other purchase. All the 'Straw' has to do is properly fill out the paperwork for 'stolen' guns and he's off the hook.

A "One Gun A Month" makes it EASIER to put guns into the illegal hands.

BTW, several states have this law in place. Surely if it was a great success you would be quoting that success. The fact that NO gun control measure has EVER shown to reduce crime proves that such measures are a waste of time, effort, and precious financial resources. People who insist in backing such measures are in effect as logical as those who still believe the earth is flat.

 

[matt1956]

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" means just that. Using that interpretation, it would appear that Webster would be within his rights to own as many handguns, shotguns, and automatic weapons as he wished even though there was a restraining order against him.

And?

Yes, the second means JUST THAT, What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do these freaking morons NOT GET?!?!

try just once to hamper his "FREEDOM of the PRESS" and see where he goes with it.

 

[Mr Weebles]

Inane articles like this bother me much less now that SCOTUS has affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Nitwits like this author know that they're losing the battle to infringe on other citizens' Civil Rights, so they still keep up their hysterical blathering.

 

[Pete85]

He had a restraining order out on him. He was in possession of guns, mostly in his home. He was "carying" a few weapons in his car. You already know that in this journalist's mind he's guilty until proven innocent. To respond to most of this guy's concerns:
-Yes he has a right to own as many guns as he wants, whether for defense, hunting, collecting, or just because he wants to. There is no need necessary.
-No HB3991 would not reduce violence. Restricting the law-abiding from buying more than one gun OR magazine a month will have no effect on people who do not buy fron lisenced dealers.
-Yes I believe "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shal not be infringed." means just that. Just like you probably beleive "Congress shall make no laws...abridging freedom of speach; or of the press..." means you can write whatever you want, no matter how mindless or ignorant it may be.
-These so called "assault weapons" or weapons that the 'only use was "to commit murder and mayhem on a massive scale."' are used in fewer violent crimes than baseball bats.
Just remember, you don't like guns, there's no one forcing you to have one.

 

[JRyan]

@*&#$ing idiot.

 

[TomH]

I still say buying one gun a month is a good idea!

I especially love the red highlighted portion. Ruined my lunch, thanks a lot!

 

[WayneWong]

Let's put the article in perspective. He's writing for the Bourne Courier. Next week he'll write an article on steamed clam recipes. Then his next assignment is on ice cream consumption. Maybe later about the local community theater.

It would be nice if he just STFU and let the adults work this thing out, but he's just background noise in light of Heller and the legal work we have at hand.


He's the loser we have to out run if a bear is chasing us. I'm glad we identified him.

 

[PEMS2324]

I can't take much more of this....

You know; I was going to wait for next weeks TAX Free weekend to buy a gun but after reading shit like this..... I'm buying one this weekend and next weekend!!

Maybe another carry gun this weekend and an AR15 next weekend...?? Ya think?

 

[clinotus]

Despite sweeping legislation, the sun is going to rise again tomorrow despite pleas not to, in light of the record drought.

Makes as much sense as the article.

 

[Raoul Duke]

"Second Amendment literalists have long held that the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" means just that."

someone explain to me how that's any different from saying, "Police have long held that when they say stop! they means just that."

 

[fubar]

What's the opposite of a 2nd Amendment Literalist ?

 

[namedpipes]

I still say buying one gun a month is a good idea!

I especially love the red highlighted portion. Ruined my lunch, thanks a lot!

I'm good with that, actually.

I think it is a safe bet most of us drink coffee or have some vice that costs ~$50 or so a month. 1xl coffee @ $2 x 5 x 4 = $40 right off the bat.

"Gun of the Month" Club?

Maybe Four Seasons and a couple other dealers around the state would be willing to find quantities of interesting but inexpensive handguns and rifles.

Think of the novel collections we'd all have after a couple of years.

 

[vicpinto]

There it it again! Another 2A article that mentions the word "hunting". I stopped reading right there.

 

[pdm]

What's the opposite of a 2nd Amendment Literalist ?

A Rosenthal.

 

[RG617]

If that sounds scary, here's something scarier. There are a lot of people out there who agree with him.

Hard to take any journalist seriously when his grammar is piss poor. It's called colon (just like him), and he really ought to learn how to use it effectively. I guess he was too busy coming up with that piece of melodramatic crap diguised as a final paragraph. It's sad that people like that, if ever faced with being robbed at gunpoint, will blame the access to firearms rather than that piece of garbage wielding it.

Lucky for him, his ideal living conditions are only a eight hour drive to the north. It's called Canada. I strongly suggest he takes a Greyhound up there. I just hope he remembers that it's BYOBK. (bring your own butcher knife)

 

[matt]

why do I bother reading these things... can I have that minute of my life back?

 

[Martlet]

Mention the Patriot Act and moonbats squawk about giving up rights for safety. Why doesn't that apply to gun ownership? Except for the obvious fact that the only people not giving up safety are the criminals.

 

[BoB13]

Let's put the article in perspective. He's writing for the Bourne Courier. Next week he'll write an article on steamed clam recipes. Then his next assignment is on ice cream consumption. Maybe later about the local community theater.

It would be nice if he just STFU and let the adults work this thing out, but he's just background noise in light of Heller and the legal work we have at hand.


He's the loser we have to out run if a bear is chasing us. I'm glad we identified him.

WW is right, this guy will be writing about the benefits of green tea next week.

What a chooch..

 

[MassMark]

Just once, (okay maybe twice), I would love to see one of these libretard journalists come onto a site like NES and engage in some debate and try to support their whacked out slant on things....Please.