Monday, August 22, 2011

Gun Owner Control

Our local State Representative, Kevin Murphy, has, on advice of councel, switch from seeking a Home Rule Petition to seeking state legislation to further encumber gun ownership in our Commonwealth.  [Lowell] Sun reporter Lyle Moran writes about it here.

The idea is that anyone who owns ten guns must have them in some sort of a safe and that safe wired to a central authority, so the police can be notified if there is a break in.

To be filed under "one size does not fit all" we have this comment from Rep Murphy:
Issues like this one have a more favorable atmosphere in the inner city.  Rural areas will be more difficult.
So why are we going for a blanket law to cover both "inner cities" and our rural areas?

And, when I think of "inner city" I think of some blighted area in some large city.  I don't think of Lowell.  This is not to say that we don't have our troubled neighborhoods.  We do.  I just don't think of it the same way I think of cities like New York or Chicago or Philadelphia or even Boston.  When we were living in Northern Virginia my wife's boss was up in Boston for a convention and managed to get himself beaten up (including a broken ankle) near Faneuil Hall, back in about 1991.  My wife was up for the convention also, running the wives tour.  She was more careful about where she went and when.

City Councillor Bud Caulfield says in the article:
The safety of the people is what my concern is,
If the safety of the People is Councillor Caulfield's concern, he should be encouraging gun ownership, not discouraging it.

Regardds  —  Cliff

4 comments:

Jack Mitchell said...

I'm in full agreement with this notion: "These laws drive legal gun ownership out the window, because it is just not worth it," he said.

Other opponents of Murphy's legislation argue that it unfairly targets lawful gun owners.


As for public safety, let's draw Cliff's position to it's logical conclusion - Gang on gang violence is a leading cause of death among gang members. So, arm them to the teeth.

nealcroz said...

And the citizens of MA continue the slide toward complete subservience to the politically correct Chicken Little's who see grave hazard in nearly every human endeavor worth anything. It is soon to become the most compliant Nanny state in the history of mankind.

A citizenry who has given up the means of protecting itself is known, on a macro scale as "subjects." On an individual, local scale, they are known as "targets" and "victims."

People with the means of exercising power over others always take the easy way to exercise their control. Thus, once the thugs and the thugs who find safety in numbers discover that the rest of the citizenry are not only unwilling, but totally unable to defend themselves, they will simply take what they want, when they want, where they want....and how they want. And the law enforcement agents will be prevented from taking action because of the same pacifist, politically correct thinking that terminated societies ability to take care of itself.

And the meek shall inherit the earth......a 4 X 6 foot plot.

Eleanor Rigby said...

I preface this by saying proudly that I AM A LIBERAL!

What Rep Kevin Murphy is proposing is nuts.

I advocate trigger locks, locked weapons lockers and certification courses. All of these things are steps that law abiding citizens will take if they desire to own guns and are currently the law.

Bottom line. Gun licenses are controlled by local police depts and Massachusetts has the toughest gun laws in the country.

Criminals and gangs do not give a rats ass about those laws so making them tougher will not help.

If Murphy wants to do something then he should look at trying to solve the problem of guns illegally coming into Massachusetts from states with few regulations about purchases etc. Do not make it harder for law abiding Massachusetts citizens to own guns.

BTW the Second Amendement? Some interpret that as meaning a militia can bear arms, not individuals...think about it, did the founding fathers really mean a government sponsored militia or private citizen has the right to bear arms? Given the fact that the American Revolution was carried out primarly by private citizens and not a Britsh Militia...what do you think?

C R Krieger said...

I liked Eleanor Rigby's comment.

As for Jack's comment, I liked his suggest, but I think that A/G Eric Holder has already tried that with Operation Gun Runner, and it has proved to be a bit of a bust and has had some blowback, although the US Attorney in Arizona is trying to deny that, especially to the widow of an ICE agent blown away with one of the guns that went to the drug gang and then came back north.

And, I did not forget Neal, who provided the details.

Regards  —  Cliff