The Politics Of Gun Control

Got some good news on this front today.  GOAL sent out an update that State Representative Denis Guyer sent out a letter to fellow State House members urging them to support an ammendment to strike the fee increases from the budget proposal.

Dear Colleague,

I hope that you will join me in sponsoring the amendments (below) to the Governor’s Supplemental Appropriation Bill.

While the bill does not yet have a bill number assigned, I will be filing these amendments as soon as we are able; so I thank you for your support in advance.

These amendments will strike sections 24, 25,26, and 27 which raise the fees on legally licensed gun owners and dealers. Under current law (Chapter 140) citizens must pay $100 to renew their gun licenses now. Under the Governor’s proposal this figure will be more than doubled to $250.

While the exact reasons for this increase have not yet been made clear, what is clear to most of us is that this new fee will make the legal and recently affirmed constitutional right for our citizens to legally possess a firearm financially out of reach. Making it harder for legal gun owners to renew their licenses will do nothing to stop the issues of gun violence and unlicensed guns on our streets today, and may in fact, create a new class of criminal: the current license holder and gun owner who is unable to afford the new fee.

Please support the thousands of LEGAL and responsible gun owners in this state by co-sponsoring these amendments.

To become a co-sponsor please respond to this email or call my office at (617) 722-2460 by 5PM Wednesday 7/16

Thank You,

Rep. Denis Guyer

Second Berkshire District

Amendments:

Amendment 1: MR. GUYER of DALTON moves to amend the bill by striking section 24.

Amendment 2: MR. GUYER of DALTON moves to amend the bill by striking section 25.

Amendment 3: MR. GUYER of DALTON moves to amend the bill by striking section 26

Amendment 4: MR. GUYER of DALTON moves to amend the Bill by striking section 27.

Amendment 5: MR. GUYER of DALTON moves to amend the Bill by striking the following sections: 24, 25, 26 and 27.

Also the proposal has been assigned a bill number of 4971.  Please refer to this number in any corospondance with your representatives.  It would also be nice if you could sent a letter of thanks to Representative Guyer.  I’m sure they appreciate getting “Thank You” letters as well as complaints.

Yesterday evening I sent emails to both my Representative(Robert Antonioni) and my Senator(Stephen DiNatale).  I already got a response from Representative Antonioni.

Hi Scott:

Thank you for your email on this issue. I am aware of the Governor’s proposal to increase the fees on gun owners. I certainly have some concerns over the rise of these fees, especially given the decline in hunting the state has seen over the past decade. I will certainly keep a close eye on this provision. I know several of my colleagues have similar concerns in the Senate.

It is important to note that this is a proposal by the Governor as part of a much larger piece of legislation. This bill will still need approval in both the House and the Senate. Your advocacy and voice is very important in this debate.

If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact my Chief of Staff, Jamie Hellen, at 617-722-1230.

Very truly yours,

Bob Antonioni

I have not received a response from Senator DiNatale as of yet, but it hasn’t even been 24 hours since I sent the initial email so that’s no big deal. I will post his response once I receive it.

Here is my response to Representative Antonioni’s email.

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your quick response, I really appreciate it. I have a couple points I would like to make in response to your email.

I am not a hunter. I’m an avid target shooter and I do own guns for self-defense. Thank God I have never had to use one, and I pray I never do. It’s just not an experience that I want. However I believe that the Second Amendment of the Untied States Constitution and Article XVII of the Massachusetts Constitution both guarantee the right to keep and bear arms to individual persons. Neither instance mentions hunting and the right to keep and bear arms should have no such restrictions expressed or implied.

In the recent supreme Court case of The District of Columbia v Heller the Supreme Court of the United States of America affirmed that the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution does recognize the natural right of self defense using arms to individuals when it says “the people”. Article XVII of the Massachusetts Constitution also specifically says that right belongs to “the people”.

Article XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence.

While I am also concerned about the fall in hunting and the ramifications that entails I am more concerned about the overall fall in licensed gun owners in the state. I would like to refer you to this blog entry( http://www.gunpolitics.com/?p=17 ) about the sharp decline in permit holders. Particularly the portions where Massachusetts Politicians and law enforcement officials seem to believe that discouraging law abiding gun ownership is somehow a good thing.

I can’t understand how making more law abiding people unable to defend themselves is an improvement. And that is exactly what this dramatic and ridiculous fee increase will do.

I’ll post and response I receive.

On Sunday July, 13, 2008 Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick filed a special appropriations bill for fiscal year 2008.  This bill doubles and in some cases more than doubles the fees charged by the State of Massachusetts to exercise a constitutionally protected right.  Here’s the text of the bill regarding the fees.

CHSB “;“ License to Carry Fee -1

SECTION 24. Section 122 of chapter 140 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2006 Official Edition, is hereby amended by striking out, in line 28, the figure ” $100″; and inserting in place thereof the following figure:- $250.

CHSB “;“ Annual Dealer License Fee

SECTION 25. Said section 122 of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby further amended by inserting after the word ” Fund.”;, in line 33, the following sentence:- Each year in which a license holder need not apply for a license renewal, the license holder shall pay to the licensing authority a license inspection fee of $100.

CHSB “;“ License to Carry Fee “;“ 2

SECTION 26. Section 131 of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby amended by striking out, in line 240, the figure ” $100″; and inserting in place thereof the following figure:- $200.

CHSB “;“ Non Residential Firearms License Fee

SECTION 27. Section 131F of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby amended by striking out, in line 53, the figure ” $100″; and inserting in place thereof the following figure:- $250.

Why don’t we charge the press a fee?  Because it’s an infringement on that right.  The 2nd should be no different.

Don’t let the “License to Carry” lingo fool you.  In Massachusetts you need a License to Carry just to own firearms never mind carry them.

If you are from Massachusetts contact your representatives and voice your objection to the charging of a fee to exercise a Constitutionally protected Right.  I can’t help but believe that this is Deval Patrick sticking his finger in the eye of all law abiding gun owners in the wake of the Heller Decision.

NRA Link

GOAL Link - This link contains the full text of the bill.

Tinley Park, Ill

Carrying a gun in Illinois is illegal for the law abiding as well as criminals. As has been demonstrated many many times in the past the criminals don’t obey the law, only the law abiding do. Therefore the law abiding are left defenseless in the face of the criminals that refuse to obey law after law. And the justice system just keeps releasing these criminals into society to keep victimizing the public time and time again.

Link to WBZ article

The victims — all females — were killed at a Lane Bryant clothing store at the Brookside Marketplace, police Sgt. T.J. Grady said. Officers found the victims at the back of the store after getting a 911 call around 10:45 a.m., Grady said.

Link to NBC5 article

Police said security cameras in the store had allowed them to tentatively identify the man, who they said has a prior history of armed robbery and a homicide conviction, NBC5 reported.

Is anyone shocked this person has prior convictions for robbery and murder?

Call Tinley Park Police at (708) 444-5368 if you have any information.

This woman (who’s identity is being withheld) briefly dated Ryan Lee Bergner, 41. When she decided to stop dating him he began stalking her and harassing her. Despite the six complaints she filed against him he refused to leave her alone. He had slashed her tires, broken into her home, stolen things from her and accosted her at her place of employment. Then on November 12th 2007 this occurred.

Ryan Lee Bergner died from 3 gunshot wounds as he tried to strangle her. She is not being charged in Indiana. However, in states like Massachusetts and New York she would be going to prison for illegal possession of a handgun without a permit. In those states you are required by law to have written permission from the state to exercise your right to keep and bear arms. Whether your life depended on it or not.

This is a response to an oped by Josh Wilder titled Guns are not a solution. It was published in the Daily Collegian on Wednesday, September 26, 2007.

If guns aren’t the solution then why is it when the bullets start to fly the first people called are people with guns?

Israel allows it’s teachers to arm themselves and allow armed parents and community members to guard the schools in shifts set up by those community groups. They send armed chaperons on field trips and they teach the students gun safety. All these guns around the kids and they haven’t had a school shooting since the late 70’s.

http://www.jpfo.org/school.htm

Mass shooters attack schools because there are full of defenseless targets. Look at the record of mass shootings, and attempted mass shootings and a disproportionate number occur in so called “gun-free zones”. Places where law or policy dictates that the people within are disarmed. The thing they most strikingly have in common is they ended when people with more guns arrived. Either through the suicide of the shooter or through the action of the new arrivals.

Like always, those wacky NRA nut jobs have found a way to get involved in the situation and now are turning it into a Second-Amendment showdown.

Name calling doesn’t really reinforce you argument, it merely demonstrates you have no rebuttal other than insults.

This really comes down to logic - sitting down like big boys and girls and talking about an issue intelligently.

How do we protect students in schools? Jane Doe and the NRA are arguing that giving guns to the teachers will give them the power to regulate such violence; and in case another kid snaps during fifth period, they will be there to pop a cap immediately.

I have seen no one advocating the shooting of misbehaving students. Please site your source. Or was this comment meant to be one of those logical big boy comments?

Say your buddy is trying to cut back and lose a few pounds. ‘Today is the day I lose the weight,’ he says, as he fills his house with Oreos, Ring Dings and peanut butter cups. He is surrounding himself with the things he is trying to avoid.

You have this comparison all wrong. Eating Oreos, Ring Dings, and peanut butter cups causes weight gain, not the mere presence of them. Your buddy has to take an active roll in his weight gain. Your buddy has to choose to eat them. In the same vein guns do not cause shootings. People choosing to point a gun at another human being and pulling the trigger is what causes shootings. If the mere presence of a firearm caused a shooting wouldn’t we have large numbers of shootings at gun shows, gun stores, police stations, and military bases? After all there are large numbers of guns and people at all those locations. A cupcake sitting on a table will make no one gain weight, and a gun sitting on a table will cause no one to get shot. And while there is not anyone running around force feeding people cupcakes there are people running around shooting people.

The best way to avoid getting shot is to not be in the place that the shooting occurs. Whether that method is never going to that location or flight from it when the shooting starts. While since we have no idea when or where the shootings are going to occur(although past history indicates that “gun-free zones” are the most common locations) and we may not have the opportunity, or in some cases the ability, to flee we must be prepared to mitigate that occurrence. The second best way to avoid being shot is to be able to meet that force with equal or superior force. A new Meatloaf song comes to mind, “In the land of the pigs the butcher is king”. That’s because the butcher is the only one with a knife. My father has said to me, “If the deer had guns you wouldn’t catch me in the woods”. These two statements demonstrate two things. If those that would kill are unchallenged what reason do they have to stop? And, the presence of overwhelming opposition can be a deterrent. Unless someone is completely crazy they aren’t going to attempt to kill large numbers of people in a place where there would be a large amount of opposition. Which is why mass shooters don’t attack places like police stations, gun shops, gun shows, or military bases. Why should they when gun restrictions have provided them with ample locations filled with easily accessible defenseless victims? Foxes love chicken coops.

Of course, some will say teachers are responsible, stable figures, so we should give them guns to mediate a situation. From my experience in school as a child, I can tell you that many teachers are completely off the wall. Some are great people, but many are high-strung, overworked control freaks. They need vacations, not guns. Not to mention the teachers who have sex with students - not the most grounded folks.

Yet I don’t see you advocating their removal. If you are afraid that they are unhinged enough to shoot a child for no reason then do they really belong in a classroom at all? What is stopping them from bringing a gun into the school in their briefcase or handbag now? If they really wanted to shoot a student what is stopping them now? The same laws that have stopped all the previous school shooters?

So in order to make the area safer for students, how about giving guns not just to the professors but to the students also? This example, while perhaps far-fetched, illustrates the crux of this issue.

No actually it misses it completely and creates a straw-man. No one is advocating that you force anyone to carry a gun on campus. What is being advocated is that you allow those that have gone through the background checks and the training to get a permit to carry.

Instead of giving teachers guns, why not give students bulletproof vests? Sure they might be bulky, but does anyone doubt that students would feel safer if they knew they had a safety net like that? Or what about installing shields on the desks or putting metal detectors at the entrances to schools? These ideas are really common sense; it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out.

The cost alone is prohibitive. Many schools can’t afford sports equipment but you think they can afford metal detectors and “bulletproof” vests for every student? First of all there is no such thing as a bulletproof vest. They are all bullet resistant. Most rifle rounds go through all but the most expensive vests. Vests also only protect the body not the head. The shooter can just continue to fire until he hits the head. Shields on desks? I would love to see your idea for a design. Metal detectors will tell you who is trying to sneak a gun into the school. The nut-job that approaches the school with gun(s) drawn will not be deterred. Unless the operator of the metal detector is armed, remember you said guns are not a solution, it only insures that operator is the first victim. And again they are very expensive and require trained paid operators. I see very little common sense in these “solutions”. Sitting in a classroom catching bullets in my “bulletproof” vest for the 15 minute average time it takes the police to arrive is not a solution to me. And I don’t give a damn about feeling safer, I want to actually be safer!!!

UPDATE: I and others have tried to post responses to this article but none of them have actually appeared even though we are all getting confirmations that they were submitted successfully.