Boston: New bills are eyed on gun control

dZ

New member
New bills are eyed on gun control

By Rick Klein, Globe Staff, 1/26/2001

month after a massacre at a Wakefield office, two gun-control advocates in the
Legislature said they see growing momentum to pass several bills that would make the
state's toughest-in-the-nation gun laws even stricter.

The rampage that took the lives of seven Edgewater Technology Inc. workers Dec. 26 has
brought new urgency to the effort to win passage of gun-control bills, said Senator Cheryl A.
Jacques, a Needham Democrat who has pushed for more stringent gun laws.

''Any time there's a tragedy like Wakefield, it focuses people back on a problem that just hasn't
been eradicated from our society,'' Jacques said.

Prosecutors say alleged Wakefield gunman Michael McDermott was armed with an AK-47
assault rifle, a .40-caliber rifle, and a 12-gauge shotgun that were between 10 and 20 years old.
He also had a .32-caliber handgun that is at least 50 years old, prosecutors say. Officials have
not identified any gun laws that McDermott is suspected of violating.

Jacques and Representative David P. Linsky, a Natick Democrat, said they expect a measure that
would force gun manufacturers to register their products' ''ballistic fingerprints'' and another that
would limit gun purchases to one per person every 30 days to pass this term.

Substantial support exists, Jacques said, for a recently filed third bill that would close what
advocates see as a loophole that allows assault weapons legally owned before Sept. 13, 1994, to
be sold in Massachusetts. It's not clear that the loophole contributed in any way to McDermott's
possession of a semi-automatic weapon.

Linsky predicted two other bills he recently filed, one to further restrict licenses to carry
firearms and another to codify existing regulations, would face more resistance.

A group of gun owners, meanwhile, met yesterday with Lieutenant Governor Jane Swift to call
for a commission to study the Wakefield shooting and prevent what one advocate called
''politically correct or hollow responses.''

John Birtwell, a spokesman for Swift and Governor Paul Cellucci, described the sit-down with
Swift as a ''courtesy meeting'' and said Cellucci will consider whether an investigatory
commission is appropriate and if it would interfere with the criminal probe.

This story ran on page B3 of the Boston Globe on 1/26/2001.
© Copyright 2001 Globe Newspaper Company.
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/026/metro/New_bills_are_eyed_on_gun_control+.shtml
 
GRRRRR>>>>

Officials have
not identified any gun laws that McDermott is suspected of violating.

Laws Violated...

1) Not in possession of a Valid Class "B" "Pistol Permit" for possession of said .32 caliber pistol.

2) Not in possession of a valid FID card for possession of said 12ga. shotgun.

3) Not in possession of a valid Class "A" "CCW permit" while in possession of a non-cased pistol.

4) Not in possession of a valid Class "A" or "B" "High Capacity Weapon Permit" while in possession of said AK-47 capable of using 30+ round magazines.

5) Violation of the Bartlett-Fox Act (i.e. violation of *ANY* Massachusetts gun law requires mandatory 1 year sentance.)

6) Not in possession of an FID card while in possession of rifle ammo.

7) Not in possession of Class "A" or "B" "Pistol Permit" while in possession of pistol ammo.

8) Failure to properly register firearms with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

9) Operating a motor vehicle with loaded weapons inside.

I'm sure there are more but my head hurts just thinking about this...

:mad:
 
Reporter Klein deserves kudos for neatly exposing the imbecility and/or cynical exploitation of this tragedy by anti-gunners Jacques and Linsky. Emphasis mine.

"Substantial support exists, Jacques said, for a recently filed third bill that would close what advocates see as a loophole that allows assault weapons legally owned before Sept. 13, 1994, to be sold in Massachusetts. It's not clear that the loophole contributed in any way to McDermott's possession of a semi-automatic weapon.

"Prosecutors say alleged Wakefield gunman Michael McDermott was armed with . . . (list of guns). Officials have not identified any gun laws that McDermott is suspected of violating." (as in "How blind can they be?")

I can't find Klein's email address, but you can write the Globe's ombudsman and thank Klein indirectly at: ombud@globe.com
 
"Toughest in the Nation Gun Laws"

OK I get it now, Massachusetts, New York and California are competing to see who can claim the "Toughest Gun Laws in the Nation"!

This is all about bragging rights, not about stopping crime. Now I get it!

The fact that none of these laws will stop violence, and that violence keeps increasing in these states because the citizens are being slowly disarmed, is meaningless. It is all about bragging rights for the Liberals.

:(

I think we need a crying smiley.


Geoff Ross
 
Oatka, my take on this is just the opposite...

"Prosecutors say alleged Wakefield gunman Michael McDermott was armed with . . . (list of guns). Officials have not identified any gun laws that McDermott is suspected of violating."

Furthering Klein's statement:

"McDermott didn't break any gun laws..."

I only say this because of the paper the story was in... The Boston Globe is as anti' as they get.

:(

I do not believe Klein deserves any cudos for this one.
 
USP45 - I see your point. I was under the impression that he was negating their comments by statements like that, as it was perfectly obvious that existing laws were broken. That, and saying, "It's not clear that the loophole contributed in any way to McDermott's possession of a semi-automatic weapon." after that idiotic loophole statement. That italicized phrase is a technique used to totally refute the preceeding comment.

I sent one off anyway, and included your list of laws already broken after that statement - thanking him for pointing out how myopic those officials were.

Yeah, I know the Globe's reputation, so I thanked him for his even-handedness and said I hoped his journalistic integrity would infect the others there. ;)

It will be interesting to see if he replies - especially if he says, "Geez, Al, I meant just the opposite!".
 
And Louis Lavelle, who had a carry permit in NH but was DENIED a carry permit in Massachusetts, was the third person killed as he tried to protect others. Funny. That doesn't seem to have made the papers.

We should offer to pay for his survivors' suing Massachusetts into bankruptcy over his wrongful death. Fred Goldman got an award of $33M.
 
Back
Top