January 13 -- This past summer Governor Paul Cellucci signed into law the most far-reaching gun law in the history of the United States. 

Under the law: 

* The poor and minorities have been disproportionately affected 
* Women now find it more difficult to defend themselves 
* Governmental bureaucracy and power has been expanded 
* Taxes on gun owners have dramatically increased 
* Gun dealers could be forced to close their businesses 
* An unpopular minority group, gun owners, have had their rights 
   sacrificed to the will of the fashionable anti-gun majority

The act's sponsor, state Senator Cheryl Jacques (D-Needham) bragged, "This legislation will give Massachusetts the toughest gun control law in the country." 

She, and other anti-gun advocates, argue that the act protects our children from gun accidents while still allowing for the ownership of firearms.  Others believe that the Massachusetts' political establishment has turned its back on the founding fathers by passing legislation to restrict a right which was once thought essential to the preservation of liberty. 

What the Massachusetts Gun Control Act of 1998 Does  

Minorities, the poor and women are put at risk 

The law bans the sale of inexpensive guns, known as “Saturday Night Specials” or “junk guns.”  Stringent requirements on the metal a gun is made of means that many cheaper guns will now be illegal.  This makes it impossible for the poor and minorities living in dangerous communities legally to purchase a cheap gun for self-defense. 

The Gun Owners Action League's Executive Director, Michael D. Yacino, told The Massachusetts News, “I am not exactly sure what they are trying to accomplish with this....  They never showed any substantiation to the assumption that [cheap guns] are the most used guns in crimes.... What the standards imply is that a person who can't afford an expensive gun shouldn't be allowed to buy an inexpensive gun to defend himself.” 

Former Manhattan District Attorney David B. Kopel  argues that such laws are inherently racist and discriminate against the poorest members of society.  He says,  “There is no question the laws against Saturday Night Specials are leveled at blacks.  The first such law came in 1870 when Tennessee attempted to disarm freedmen by prohibiting the sale of all but ‘army and navy’ handguns.  Ex-confederate soldiers already had their military handguns, but ex-slaves could not afford high quality weapons.  The situation today is not much different.  As the federal district court in Washington, DC, has noted, laws aimed at Saturday Night Specials have the effect of selectively disarming minorities....” 

Such regulations prevent the poorest members of the Commonwealth, who are the most vulnerable to violent crime, from buying a gun that they can afford to defend themselves and their families. 

One of the law's most egregious effects is that a women who wishes to carry a non-lethal, self-defense spray for her own protection must be photographed, fingerprinted and issued a Firearms Identification Card by authorities every four years.  She is told to keep the FID card on her at all times.  If she is attacked and uses the spray to defend herself, while filling out any crime report she will also have to show her FID card to prove that she was within the law.  Vulnerable members of the population are left with fewer self defense options, unless they are willing to comply with complicated and intrusive state regulations. 

Law-abiding gun owners bear the burden 

Anyone who owns a gun, or wants to own a gun (rifle or handgun), in Massachusetts must apply for a Firearms Identification Card.  Even if he never leaves his own property with his gun he still must have a FID card.  All persons applying for a Firearms Identification Card will have to be fingerprinted and photographed by the police.  The cards were once valid for life and cost two dollars.  Now a gun owner must get his card renewed every three to four years at a cost of twenty-five dollars. 

These new fees, according to the Gun Owners Action League, will cost gun owners an additional seven million dollars a year.  Persons over 70 and persons who want only self-defense sprays need not pay the fee, although they still must apply for the card. 

Failure to get a card can result in a fine of between $500 and $5,000.  If a gun owner fails to renew his card his gun(s) can be confiscated.  Once the gun owner applies for a renewal and is approved, his property will be returned to him. 

Even within a private residence, the law requires gun owners to store their weapons in a locked container or attach a safety device.  Depending on the type of gun, the penalty for failure to store a weapon in a legal fashion can be a prison term of one to ten years and a fine of five hundred to ten thousand dollars. 

Gun owners also must submit to a state-approved basic firearm safety course.  The course curriculum will be determined by the Colonel of the State Police, who will certify instructors for an initial fee of fifty dollars, and a ten dollar renewal fee not less than every ten years. 

It is a crime to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs while in the possession of a gun, even with a FID card.  The standard for “under the influence” is set at a blood alcohol content of .08%.  This may criminalize self defense in a person's home.  This is because if a person has a couple of drinks after work it may be illegal for him to use his gun to defend himself, because he is “under the influence.” 

Although the "under the influence" portions of the law may not apply to a person in his own home, the lack of clarity raises some serious questions. Yacino says, “I think a clear argument can be made for self-defense, but I would not want to try and get away with it.... I suppose some fancy lawyer could make the argument that it doesn't matter.” 

If a citizen refuses to take a sobriety test, he will have his license automatically suspended for six months.  Someone who fails the test and is convicted will lose his license for two years.  If a person is found to be under the influence while in possession of his gun twice in a ten-year period, his license will be revoked for life.  According to the Gun Owner's Action League, “Because no maximum sentence is created, a .08 BAC could net you more severe punishment (life in prison) than rape, child molestation or even murder.” 

The law is yet another affront to small business in Massachusetts 

Many small, gun dealers may be forced out of business by the regulations and responsibilities placed on them by the new law. Gun dealers whose shops are located in their residence may be forced to close because the law makes such an arrangement illegal.  Also, the costs of complying with metallurgical and other regulations aimed at cheaper guns may make staying in business too expensive for many gun dealers. 

Local police departments will bear the brunt of enforcing the new 400-page regulations 

Although half of the FID card fees go to towns to help them enforce the new regulations many are still finding the new law burdensome. According to the Wellesley Townsman, “The Gun Control Act is intended to make sure criminals who use firearms pay a steep price, but some police say it comes at the cost of increased administrative paperwork for local police departments and decreased local autonomy....  The brunt of the bureaucracy stems from renewing FID cards, which previously lasted for life.” 

Detective Lieutenant Terrance Cunningham, of the Wellesley police department told the Townsman, “It used to take one sergeant to conduct background checks for firearm permits.  It's taking a lot more time right now, double the workload.  They just said ‘Here's the law, go to it.’”  Local police even have to pay for the one hundred dollar “tome” that explains how they should enforce the new law, reports the Townsman. 

If the local police need to pay police officers overtime or hire new officers to enforce the new act, the taxpayers of that town will have to pay more for their police force. 

What's more, according to Yacino, “There will be a lot of communities that can't do it.  It's a matter of staff.  They can't do it.  They don't have enough personnel.”  Yacino says that there are many communities, in the western part of the state especially, that will not be able to comply with the regulations.  “[This] creates quite a problem for the people in that community because they're supposed to have this license....” And if they don't have it they are in violation of the law. 

A spokesman for Senator Jacques, Angus McQuilken, told the Townsman that the intentions of  the bill were more important than its cost to local communities.  “[The act's] pledge to reduce gun-related crimes and accidents overshadowed any doubts about increased bureaucracy.” 

This aspect of the law recalls a point raised by Ayn Rand in her classic tale of government run amok, Atlas Shrugged.  A character says, “Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?  We want them to be broken.... There's no way to rule innocent men.  The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals.  Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them.  One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws....  Just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted, and you create a nation of law-breakers." 

More Assaults Planned 

Boston Mayor Thomas Menino recently announced plans to sue gun manufacturers for making a dangerous product.  According to Peter Welsh, an aide to Menino, “We want to hold  handgun manufacturers responsible the way car manufacturers and tobacco companies are held responsible. We want to push the envelope on this.” And national anti-gun groups are excited by the leading role that Boston is playing in restricting citizens’ legal access to guns.  According to Kristen Rand, of the Washington D.C. based Violence Policy Center, “It's very significant that a major city like Boston [files] suit because it could mean serious financial problems for the industry.” 

It is not just in the City of Boston that gun manufacturers are under attack.  State Attorney General Thomas Reilly recently told The Boston Globe, “The mayor called and said that he was contemplating taking this action and asked for our help.”  Reilly continued,  “I said if there was anything we could do, we would.  I, too, have a problem with guns and if we can assist in this action, we'll do it.” 

Stop Handgun Violence, an anti-gun group with an office in Boston, unveiled its next step in the gun control movement at a recent event attended by Mayor Menino and parents of children killed by careless gun use.  Along the Massachusetts Turnpike, a huge (252’ x 20’) billboard now bears the words, “It's easier to childproof your gun, than to bulletproof your child.”  Stop Handgun Violence says that they have secured over three hundred other billboards across New England, and that they plan to go nationwide with their “public awareness campaign.” 

The national anti-gun movement now looks to the Massachusetts Gun Control Act as a model to be emulated nationwide.  John Rosenthal, the co-founder of Stop Handgun Violence, told supporters, “We look forward to continuing to look forward [sic] to replicate the Massachusetts model nationwide.” 

Regarding Boston's lawsuit, Yacino says that the gun industry is already one of the most highly regulated businesses.  He continues, “It seems rather ironic that the government officials would use the power of the tax dollars to sue people who pay taxes, claiming that they are doing something wrong simply because they politically disagree with [them].” 

Yacino goes on to explain that the fight to preserve the Second Amendment in the Bay State has not been abandoned.  The League began the process of challenging the new law this year by working to defeat legislators who supported it.  Yacino says, “First of all..., [we] were successful in defeating [Forrester A. “Tim” Clark, Jr. (R-Hamilton)] in his reelection attempt in the primary, and then in the general election we went after several people there and were successful in a couple of instances to remove people who voted against us. 

“The second area is litigation.  We are obviously filing to try and get the courts to see that some of  [the act] is simply unconstitutional.”  Yacino adds that membership in his organization is booming.  “I estimate by February we'll double our membership,” he said. 

Recently, the Gun Owners Action League demanded that the state Senate apply their own law to the chamber in which they approved it.  In a letter to the Colonel of the State Police, Yacino demanded that the long guns displayed in the chamber be stored according to the rules established by the Gun Control Act of 1998.  “Obviously,” Yacino argues, “we would expect that everyone comply with this new law which a majority of the legislature feels is the panacea for safety in the storage and display of guns.” 

The Senate has begun the process of storing the long guns according to their own legislation.  The league argues that the Senate guns illustrate how little thought the legislature put into the law.  "The very same people who take up room in that [Senate] chamber are showing us by their comments that they didn't have a clue what they were voting for."  Yacino hopes that the exercise of making the Senate's historical guns compliant will lead some legislators to rethink the law itself. 

Also, The Massachusetts Libertarian party recently filed legislation calling for the repeal of the act.  They argue that it was "rushed through with little public discussion, was ill-conceived and is cumbersome and unconstitutional." 

Apparently, Gun Owners will not go down without a fight. 

Guns in Massachusetts: Past, Present and The Future 

Attitudes toward the right to bear arms in Massachusetts have changed drastically from the early days of the Commonwealth, when it was a hotbed for liberty, to today, when it is arguably the most statist state in the Union. 

The founders of our nation, many of whom were from Massachusetts, thought that the right to bear arms was essential to freedom. 

At the Massachusetts Constitutional convention in 1788 Samuel Adams opined,  “The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, of the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” 

Another well known statesman of the Commonwealth, Elbridge Gerry, warned in 1789,  “What sir is the use of the militia?  It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty....  Whatever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins.” 

Contrast those sentiments with that of Senate President Thomas Birmingham (D-Cambridge).  He said, “In most developed societies, health care is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.  We in the United States have somehow got those priorities reversed.”  State Representative Ellen Story (D-Amherst) said, “I feel so strongly about this.... To me, it's just common sense that we should have the fewest number of guns available in society as possible.” 

A state once committed to freedom now seems hostile to the Second Amendment. Considering the momentum that the anti-gun organizations have and the fact that Governor Cellucci is not a reliable check on a heavily anti-gun legislature, we are likely to see more restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms in this Commonwealth. 

Read the Gun Owner's Action League's Analysis of the Act.