Wash Post commentary on new Mass. gun law

  • Thread starter Thread starter dZ
  • Start date Start date

dZ

New member
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
 
dz;

Here is my response that I e-mailed to the Post.


I was dismayed to read Mary McGrory’s editorial in the April 9th, 2000 issue of the Washington Post. She seems to think that one person bypassing the legislative process in a democracy and imposing laws is a good idea. That is a dictatorship. If I have my history correct, I believe Adolf Hitler disarmed the Jews before he murdered them. If this is Ms. McGrory’s vision of the ideal society, I want no part of it.

Please forward this to Ms. McGrory
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MikeK:
dz;

Here is my response that I e-mailed to the Post.


I was dismayed to read Mary McGrory’s editorial in the April 9th, 2000 issue of the Washington Post. She seems to think that one person bypassing the legislative process in a democracy and imposing laws is a good idea. That is a dictatorship. If I have my history correct, I believe Adolf Hitler disarmed the Jews before he murdered them. If this is Ms. McGrory’s vision of the ideal society, I want no part of it.

Please forward this to Ms. McGrory

[/quote]

The problem is that the AG didn't bypass the legislative branch. What he did was perfectly legal (in Mass.).
Until the legislature in Massechusetts changes the laws, gun owners are Sh_t outta luck.
Now, a question...can a Massechusetts citizen purchase a gun out of state? And, if so, can a Mass. dealer handle the transfer?
Can the Republican Governor over rule the AG?

We all know the bottom line of Reilly's and Harshbarger's "consumer protection will be a bunch of black market handguns.

I live in PA...not much chance of that here...yet!


[This message has been edited by Ezeckial (edited April 09, 2000).]
 
Ezickial;

Thanks for the information. Even if it is legal in Mass. it shouldn't be. I live in MD and our AG wants a complete handgun ban. Even though my response didn't get into the legality of the process, I doubt if the Post will print it anyway.
 
Indeed, if Mass. is such a hotbed of 'participatory democracy', I find it incongruous that this compliment is bestowed when the attorney general bypasses their legislature to institute further infringements upon their civil rights.

Newspeak ... just as in '1984'. Also known as 'BS'.
 
Quote: 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.

This is a shameful thing. The system of checks and balances is supposed to stop tyrants exactly like this Attorney General from deciding that the Constitution is an inconvenience to them. The idea that "consumer protection" could override the constitution, the supreme law of our land, is a bad joke.

Does the Miranda ritual protect consumers? No, it's bad for consumers, let's revoke the fifth amendment.

How about that sixth amendment right to counsel? Naw, makes it harder to convict those accused of violating consumer protection regulations. Got to go.

How about that First Amendment? Naw, some people use it to tell consumers things I don't agree with. Got to go.

What a great place Massachusetts must be for criminals, whether they hold public office or not. If every state had "regulations" like Massachusetts, this would be Nazi Germany.
 
To quote from the article -
"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."

I thought personal arms and citizen militias were intended as a precaution against overbearing domestic or foreign governments, be they monarchies or otherwise.
Jeff
 
"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."

ARE YOU KIDDING ME? I just about threw up when I read this. Talk about tyranny and injustice. It doesn't get any bolder than this.
 
How did you reply? I can't find an e-mail address to send anything to.

'The Second Amendment, which contains the lethal phrase "the right of the people to . . . bear Arms" has no place in the discussion.'

Of course. Why should the Bill of Rights have any bearing on law?

And her comment about the indians. Hello! Did the founding fathers choose muskets because they were antique and quaint? Why not crossbows, spears, or boomerangs? They fought an oppresive government with the best weapons that they could aquire.

It is a disgrace to call this woman an American.

I know that I'm preaching to the choir, but I was ready to explode. Now, how can I give her (and The Post) a piece of my mind?
 
Back
Top