94% of MA Elected Officials Polled Do Not Own Firearms
Friday, January 18, 2013
Of the 21 state Senators, 83 state Representatives, six state officers and nine members of Congress that responded to GoLocal's survey, only seven elected officials, or 6 percent of respondents, said they owned a firearm. Several respondents declined to answer for privacy reasons or chose to offer no response.
In the wake of the tragic mass shooting at a Connecticut elementary school last month that took the lives of 20 first-graders, lawmakers across the country have called for a renewed debate on gun control, and both President Obama and Governor Deval Patrick introduced new gun safety legislation this week.
But gun rights advocates said the lack of firearm ownership among legislators has led to lack of understanding and the crafting of gun control laws that have a negative impact on law-abiding citizens.
Patrick's Gun Reform
Patrick's legislation includes enhanced background checks, which will be in compliance with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and would require the state's courts to transmit relevant mental health records to the criminal justice information system so they can be included in a national registry that all states access prior to issuing gun licenses. To close an existing loophole, gun purchasers would be required to undergo background checks at gun shows.
Patrick is also seeking to limit the number of weapon sales by licensed dealers to one per licensed individual each month and require private gun sales to occur at licensed dealers so they can be tracked. The Governor's legislation would also reduce access to high-powered ammunition.
In addition, Patrick is including a $5 million increase to the state's Department of Mental Health in his FY2014 budget to bolster programs that promote public safety and increase public awareness of available mental health treatment.
“I am encouraged by the palpable consensus in our Legislature that the time for action is now," the Governor said. "All of us must pull in the same direction to bring about real change in this state and across the country.”
Missing the Target
However, several gun advocates argued that the lack of gun ownership and familiarity with firearms among lawmakers leads to misdirected gun control laws that target law-abiding citizens rather than the criminal element responsible for much of the country's gun violence.
William McCarthy, a professor of Criminal Justice at Quinsigamond Community College and a member of the Republican State Committee, said he was not surprised by the low percentage of gun ownership among elected officials in the Bay State.
"Based on the current laws in effect that have been passed in the state during the last 10 to 20 years and the makeup of the legislature, we can see that the political philosophy of the majority of the members trends toward gun control," McCarthy said.
Massachusetts passed an extensive gun control act in 1998, which contained many of the same restrictions as the 1994 federal assault weapon ban and also defined "large capacity" firearms as any semi-automatic firearm that can accept or be modified to accept a magazine with more than 10 rounds.
"Obviously the legislation that was passed in 1998 was drafted and passed by people that hated guns," said Jim Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners' Action League (GOAL), grassroots organization based in Northborough and the official state association of the National Rifle Association (NRA) in Massachusetts.
The current state legislature has been more proactive in communicating with gun advocates and Second Amendment groups like GOAL.
"For the most part the leadership has been reaching out for information and other legislators have as well," Wallace said.
"This was all brought about because therer was a killer in the classroom," he said. "None of the proposals I've seen anywhere, federal or state, deal with the killer in the classroom."
Steven Hathaway, director of the Mass Firearms School, said Patrick's legislation, which would change the definition of "large capacity" firearms to include any semi-automatic firearm that can accept or be modified to accept a magazine with a capacity of seven rounds, rather than the previous 10 rounds, is an example of arbitrary restrictions on guns that have unintended consequences.
"As the law is currently written, it is an outright ban on all semi-automatic firearms," he said.
Because many gun laws are so poorly-written, Hathaway said, they have the potential to turn law-abiding citizens into felons.
"They're passing laws that they don't understand. They don't understand the engineering and the mechanics of firearms."
Meanwhile, Wallace said that the number of licensed gun owners in the Commonwealth has decreased from 1.5 million to around 230,000 since the state's 1998 gun control laws passed, but gun violence has increased by 200 percent during the same time period.
"It was becasue they came after the lawful gun owner in 1998 like they're doing now rather than deal with the human criminal element," he said.
Related Articles
- CHART: Which MA State Reps Own Guns?
- Which MA Congress Members Own Guns?
- Which MA State Officers Own Guns?
- Which MA State Senators Own Guns?
- Gun Permits Skyrocket: Top Stories in Central Mass in 2012
- “Goods for Guns” Born out of Worcester Doctor’s Tragedy
- Investigation: Gun Permits Skyrocketing in Central MA
- Towns With the Most Gun Permits in Central MA
Comments:
D Stanley
10:56am on Friday, January 18, 2013
When Smith and Wesson had 200 guns stolen (only a few dozen recovered), we all felt a little less safe. So what is the natural response to that for someone living in the Hartford Springfield area? Why, get yourself a gun, of course, probably from Smith and Wesson! If more military style guns are out in circulation, more crimes will be committed with them, and more people will feel they need to have one (or two, or three)themselves! What a business model, like selling cigarettes or heroine or some other addictive drug. In what other line of business can you profit so thoroughly from your own irresponsibility! A killer in a class room with a knife will kill less students than a killer in a class room with a high capacity assault rifle. I can’t believe I have to actually point that out! The purpose of a high capacity assault rifle is to kill more people in less time, that’s why they invented it. Why is a small powerful minority (acting) surprised by that? How does an assault weapon ban abridge the 2nd amendment (written with single shot black powder muskets in mind, by the way) any more than a ban on machineguns and anti-tank weapons?
I have deer eating my gardens and jumping out in front of my car all the time, and leaving deer ticks all over my town; do hunting members of the NRA honestly think their ability to hunt will be taken away by an assault weapons ban and background checks for all gun sellers? Not the ones I have talked to. I’m even thinking of taking up hunting myself, once my children are older.
Harry Huckum
5:19pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
So many low information people in the world have been programmed by an anti gun media.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30
More people are killed by hammers, than by guns. We need to ban hammers.
Jay P
3:58pm on Saturday, January 19, 2013
"The purpose of a high capacity assault rifle is to kill more people in less time, that’s why they invented it."
Come on D Stanley, you've got to be smarter than that. While yes, killing more people in less time (for military purposes) is certainly a main consideration, it is certainly not the ONLY reason they were invented, as people like you seem to ignorantly believe. Let's just say you happened to be in a firefight with a criminal trespasser who made it clear he wanted to do great harm to you and your children, and who likely has a high-capacity repeating style firearm of their own. You cannot say with a straight face the you would be comfortable defending your offspring, spouse, etc with a single-shot, reload-every-bullet, bolt-action rifle. If so, you would last about 30 seconds if you were lucky and your family would be at the criminal's disposal. I pity you and your family members if you are in fact comfortable with that. Having a high-capacity firearm is NOT only for killing as many people as possible, but ALSO for being able to defend against and keep up with the dirt bag criminals who want to commit such heinous crimes with them.
Your quote here only goes to show how every time you or those of your mindset open your mouth about "gun control" embarrass yourselves mightily. Proof that if you keep telling yourself something enough times, eventually you'll believe it as absolute truth, regardless whether or not it is in fact true.
Harry Huckum
4:06pm on Saturday, January 19, 2013
When seconds count D Stanley would rather wait for minutes for the police to arrive.
D Stanley
12:23pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
I am not ignorant, although I don’t know the latest gun lingo, and I am a little worried about my first amendment rights being threatened by someone-else’s second amendment “rights”. Tell me, when was the last time you were in a firefight requiring a military assault rifle? Am I supposed to have one of these things in my back pocket when I go to Price Chopper? To protect my family, of course! I went to high school with a kid who got hold of his dad’s hunting rifle and shot it through the walls of his bedroom (accidentally) and killed his mother; that’s more likely to happen than your fantasy gunfight.
Yes, their main reason for being invented was to kill more people in less time, which is why I have no problem with soldiers having them (the “well regulated militia” referred to in the second amendment). I’m sure some manufacturers have added little extras for the testosterone poisoned suburbanite, like a garage door opener to surprise those home invaders, or “custom styling”. But frankly, I don’t want such unstable civilians having access to such weaponry.
Lack of responsibility hiding behind the bill of rights, that is the issue. The NRA has deep pockets, that’s why the legislature talks to them. They have a charter structure that makes it difficult for rank and file members to rise very far while still paying dues (taxation without representation) and are therefore run by professional politicians (without term limits?) just as in our state legislatures and congress. And so they have evolved into a marketing arm of the gun industry while using their gun safety programs (once the main mission of the organization)as a store front. We have a very high murder rate in this country; too many innocent (and not so innocent) are deprived of their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And it is extremely high compared with European Union countries, inhabited by the same Homo sapiens. States like Massachusetts with strict gun regulations have lower murder rates than those which do not, but are still high compared to Western Europe, Japan and Canada. Why is that?
D Stanley
1:14pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
It’s not because of the second amendment; it’s because of a willful, profit driven, misinterpretation of the second amendment. It’s also because of a willful, profit driven, misinterpretation of the motives of citizens who would propose reasonable and constitutional firearms regulations.
Jay P
2:18pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
I'm not sure what you're talking about with the bit about your being "worried about [your] first amendment rights being threatened by someone-else’s second amendment 'rights'." I'm only speaking for the people who simply want the maintain the right to defend themselves as outlined in the 2nd amendment. Unless you're thinking that some sort of military coup is a possibility, then I'm not sure how much limiting of 1st amendment rights we could possibly be at risk for in today's society when you think about it.
Additionally, I don't know why you felt the need to ask about carrying a "military assult weapon" in your back pocket. Go back and re-read my original response; I neither said nor insinuated that anyone should be carrying around in public (concealed) the type of weapon you seem to be describing, that would be foolish. Your sarcasm and tendency to jump off topic just makes it harder for people who are interested in having a constructive conversation to see the value in attempting to do so, not to mention, it goes to show your level of maturity. Having said that, I have no issue with anyone who wants to carry a handgun (legally) around for there own personal or general public protection. Even if there are 10+ rounds in the magazine. "Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it." Because in this case, when you need it and don't have it, it could mean your or family members' deaths or more. Do you think any of the people from VA Tech, Columbine, Aurora, or Newtown were thinking they'd be in a firefight any time soon? No, of course not, just like you and I don't anticipate being in one. But if it ever did happen, wouldn't you rather be prepared, seeing as the law allows for it? The truly evil and disturbed people that do these things will always have these weapons at their disposal because there are countless of them out there and they won't think twice about breaking just another law. So by taking them away from law abiding citizens who simply want to be equipped to deal with these sickos, should the need arise, only stacks the cards against those of us who are law abiders.
The REAL problem is, we as a society need to do an infinitely better job at raising our children to have some cognizance of right and wrong. The more we disregard any structure, or heaven forbid, anything that might serve as a moral compass, then the more we're going to see this kind of stuff happening, regardless of any laws that may be enacted.
Jay P
2:22pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
We also need to do a much better job of recognizing those that are mentally ill, or at least at-risk for mental illness. That way appropriate precautions can be taken along those lines. Didn't mean to imply that society's morality or lack thereof nowadays is the only reason we see things like this happening.