Disarming http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40707-2000Apr8.html
By Mary McGrory
Sunday , April 9, 2000 ; B01
Massachusetts may once again have fired the shot heard round the world.
This time, it's the gun control world, and words were the weapons, not colonial muskets. The Bay State has laid down regulations that comprise the strictest gun control measures in the country. They went
into effect immediately when Attorney General Thomas Reilly announced them. Now, all guns in Massachusetts have to have trigger locks, tamper-proof serial numbers and devices that show whether they
are loaded. And Saturday night specials, the handguns favored by criminals, are banned.
The tough measures are already court-tested. After two years of litigation brought by pro-gun groups, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the attorney general can lay down the law where
firearms are concerned. The gun control community, stymied by the National Rifle Association in its congressional battles, is delighted.
The genius of the Massachusetts solution is that it simply bypasses all the obstacles the gun lobby habitually throws in the way of attempts to limit gun sales. The Second Amendment, which contains the
lethal phrase "the right of the people to . . . bear Arms" has no place in the discussion. The NRA is still engaged in trying to persuade people that the redcoats and the Indians--who were on the Founders'
minds when they spoke of the importance of "a well-regulated militia"--are still around. Massachusetts ignored all that by decreeing that guns are consumer products like all others, and must meet certain
safety standards.
Credit for this breakthrough concept goes to hard-charging Scott Harshbarger, the state's former attorney general, who in 1997 waged a vigorous campaign to reduce crime. He brought in community
police, recreation programs, conflict resolution teams. When he asked his consumer safety staff if there was anything else they could do, they told him to look at guns as consumer products subject to
consumer regulations.
Harshbarger, a Democrat who was defeated in a run for the governorship in 1998, is now in Washington. As president of the advocacy group Common Cause, he is doing battle on behalf of campaign
finance reform. His successor, Reilly, took up gun control as his first order of business, and once the court cases were decided in favor of the consumer approach, he swung into action. Now he's hearing
cheers from gun control organizations all over the country. This week he received an e-mail from the mother of a student at Columbine High School; last year's carnage there was supposed to shame
Congress into doing something about guns. She thanked Reilly for "making the country safer for our children."
The NRA has not yet officially returned fire.
Massachusetts has a long history of taking matters into its own hands, on both domestic and foreign policy. It is the only place in the country where "liberal" is not a fighting word. Massachusetts takes the
idea of a participatory democracy quite literally and is known for speaking out against tyranny and injustice. The attitude goes back to colonial times: The Boston Tea Party is a case in point.
It happens to be my home state, but I am not speaking as a chauvinist. The record is clear. Boston was the scene of abolitionist agitating long before the Civil War. The Massachusetts General Court, as its
legislature is known, tried to keep its sons from fighting in Vietnam. When he was governor, Michael Dukakis refused to send Bay State National Guardsmen to train in Honduras during Ronald Reagan's
witless contra war. The U.S. Supreme Court foiled him, but he was acting in a great tradition.
More recently, Massachusetts has been before the Supreme Court on another foreign policy matter. The state viewed the government of Burma quite correctly as a disgusting dictatorship, and it won't do
business with the colonels, or with companies that do. Trade associations brought suit, and again the high court is being called upon to decide if the most progressive state in the Union has gone too far.
With such a background, no wonder Massachusetts is pioneering in gun control, taking what gun owners regard as the revolutionary approach of stripping an issue of its emotional content and making gun
safety a question of common sense.
Gun control advocates on Capitol Hill are much heartened. As Sen. Charles Schumer, a Democrat from New York, said, "If every state had regulations like those in Massachusetts, we wouldn't need a
federal gun law."
© 2000 The Washington Post Company
By Mary McGrory
Sunday , April 9, 2000 ; B01
Massachusetts may once again have fired the shot heard round the world.
This time, it's the gun control world, and words were the weapons, not colonial muskets. The Bay State has laid down regulations that comprise the strictest gun control measures in the country. They went
into effect immediately when Attorney General Thomas Reilly announced them. Now, all guns in Massachusetts have to have trigger locks, tamper-proof serial numbers and devices that show whether they
are loaded. And Saturday night specials, the handguns favored by criminals, are banned.
The tough measures are already court-tested. After two years of litigation brought by pro-gun groups, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the attorney general can lay down the law where
firearms are concerned. The gun control community, stymied by the National Rifle Association in its congressional battles, is delighted.
The genius of the Massachusetts solution is that it simply bypasses all the obstacles the gun lobby habitually throws in the way of attempts to limit gun sales. The Second Amendment, which contains the
lethal phrase "the right of the people to . . . bear Arms" has no place in the discussion. The NRA is still engaged in trying to persuade people that the redcoats and the Indians--who were on the Founders'
minds when they spoke of the importance of "a well-regulated militia"--are still around. Massachusetts ignored all that by decreeing that guns are consumer products like all others, and must meet certain
safety standards.
Credit for this breakthrough concept goes to hard-charging Scott Harshbarger, the state's former attorney general, who in 1997 waged a vigorous campaign to reduce crime. He brought in community
police, recreation programs, conflict resolution teams. When he asked his consumer safety staff if there was anything else they could do, they told him to look at guns as consumer products subject to
consumer regulations.
Harshbarger, a Democrat who was defeated in a run for the governorship in 1998, is now in Washington. As president of the advocacy group Common Cause, he is doing battle on behalf of campaign
finance reform. His successor, Reilly, took up gun control as his first order of business, and once the court cases were decided in favor of the consumer approach, he swung into action. Now he's hearing
cheers from gun control organizations all over the country. This week he received an e-mail from the mother of a student at Columbine High School; last year's carnage there was supposed to shame
Congress into doing something about guns. She thanked Reilly for "making the country safer for our children."
The NRA has not yet officially returned fire.
Massachusetts has a long history of taking matters into its own hands, on both domestic and foreign policy. It is the only place in the country where "liberal" is not a fighting word. Massachusetts takes the
idea of a participatory democracy quite literally and is known for speaking out against tyranny and injustice. The attitude goes back to colonial times: The Boston Tea Party is a case in point.
It happens to be my home state, but I am not speaking as a chauvinist. The record is clear. Boston was the scene of abolitionist agitating long before the Civil War. The Massachusetts General Court, as its
legislature is known, tried to keep its sons from fighting in Vietnam. When he was governor, Michael Dukakis refused to send Bay State National Guardsmen to train in Honduras during Ronald Reagan's
witless contra war. The U.S. Supreme Court foiled him, but he was acting in a great tradition.
More recently, Massachusetts has been before the Supreme Court on another foreign policy matter. The state viewed the government of Burma quite correctly as a disgusting dictatorship, and it won't do
business with the colonels, or with companies that do. Trade associations brought suit, and again the high court is being called upon to decide if the most progressive state in the Union has gone too far.
With such a background, no wonder Massachusetts is pioneering in gun control, taking what gun owners regard as the revolutionary approach of stripping an issue of its emotional content and making gun
safety a question of common sense.
Gun control advocates on Capitol Hill are much heartened. As Sen. Charles Schumer, a Democrat from New York, said, "If every state had regulations like those in Massachusetts, we wouldn't need a
federal gun law."
© 2000 The Washington Post Company