The Guide to a Complete Gun Ban in the Commonwealth
(by James L. Wallace)
In the last few years, we the citizens of the Commonwealth have been witness to one of the most masterful orchestrations of Constitutional dismantling ever in the history of our young nation. A minority of individuals continues to control the lives of others fostered by a lack of knowledge and an ever complacent population.
For those who do not believe that rights can and are often removed in this country, you may have no need to read on. However, for those that are truly aware of their political surroundings, please take the time to peruse through the events outlined in the following sections. Think how the public could be easily fooled into accepting some of the arguments made for any specific issue.
PART I
History:
In 1996, the Massachusetts Attorney General used Chapter 93A “Regulation Of Business Practices For Consumers Protection” to promulgate and enforce new “safety” regulations on handguns. These new regulations were sold as being under the Consumer Protection Act.
Political Sound Bite:
“The gun industry is one of the only industries in our country that are not regulated under the consumer protection laws. If teddy bear manufacturers and auto makers are forced to adhere to strict safety regulations, why shouldn’t gun manufacturers.”
The Facts:
1) When the actual law, Chapter 93A “Regulation Of Business Practices For Consumers Protection”, was researched it was found that the powers given under this law originates from the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1)), which have little to do with safety regulations. These laws are actually those that prohibit industry from using unfair and deceptive practices to gain advantage in the business world. In order to comply with this type of act, the Attorney General created a fictitious set of safety regulations on handguns and declared that any manufacturer that did not comply with them would be acting in an unfair and deceptive manner. Advocating for these standards he was successful in convincing the courts, that any manufacturer, which did not comply with the new regulations would be deceiving the public. Thus was created a backdoor consumer protection angle that was based on nothing more than smoke and mirrors.
2) The firearms industry is heavily involved in setting acceptable standards. This “self regulating” industry adheres to over 800 safety standards that have been created through rigorous testing and evaluations. The industry works together as a whole through a trade association known as SAAMI (Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturer’s Institute).
SAAMI is an accredited standards developer for The American National Standards Institute (ANSI). As an accredited standards developer, SAAMI's standards for industry test methods, definitive proof loads, and ammunition performance specifications are subject to ANSI review and various ANSI criteria.
As for the need for the firearms industry to be regulated similarly to the auto industry, National Safety Council statistics state that children under five years old are 47 times more likely to killed in an auto accident, then they are in an accident with any type of firearm. This would implicate that the supposed “self regulated” industry has a much better track record of safety.
Results:
Since the establishment of these regulations, the legal flow of new handguns into the Commonwealth has been reduced to a trickle. Most manufacturers and licensed dealers are unable to make any sense out of the regulations and have even asked their respective senators and representatives to seek clarification. The Massachusetts Attorney General has rebuffed them all. Apparently, it is the opinion of the Attorney General that he is not responsible for providing any such clarifications. Unfortunately, without the regulations being clarified, most manufacturers and dealers are unwilling to risk the potential fines, which are as much as $5,000 per handgun sold that do not meet the new regulations.
PART II
History:
In 1998 a historically significant gun law was passed. Chapter 180 of the Acts of 1998, would turn out to be one of the most incomprehensive and oppressive gun laws in our nations history.
Political Sound Bite:
“All we are looking for here is reasonable gun control. What reasonable person would not support taking guns out of the hands of criminals.”
The Facts:
Since crime, in general, was on the decrease until 1998, there was no justification given for the need of such an oppressive piece of legislation. Although, it was billed as an “Assault Weapons” ban and crime bill, it was not until the actual House votes that any language addressing criminal activities was added.
Results:
Potential license holders would face loss of their license and property for even a minor misdemeanor, literally back to their date of birth. Many citizens that held, formally lifetime Firearms Identification Cards, were caught completely off guard when they were challenged by officers that wished to see their “new” FID cards. No other sector of society would be held up to such a standard.
PART III
History:
At the start of the new legislative session in 2001, yet another bill was filed that would curb the flow of lawful commerce. This newest bill, “An Act to Prevent the Illegal Trafficking of Firearms” was being billed as a means to stop the rash of “straw purchasing” that was said to plague Massachusetts.
Political Sound Bite:
“There is no way any reasonable person could oppose this bill.” “For the life of me, why would anyone need more than one gun a month.”, “Multiple gun purchases only account for 2 percent of sales, but account for 5 to 10 percent of illegal firearms.”, “Asking for better enforcement of existing laws is a cop out.”
The Facts:
This bill is designed to limit the sale of handguns and high capacity rifles/shotguns to one in a thirty-day period. The concept supposedly being that if the state can limit the sale of firearms to law abiding citizens, the flow of firearms to criminals will somehow be stopped. However, once again the supporters of, so called, “reasonable gun control” have contrived a bill that relies entirely on the restriction of lawful commerce to prevent criminal activities. There is not one single piece of this legislation that addresses the illegal trafficking of firearms.
Supporters of the legislation have declared that they have no interest investing resources to set up an instant check system that would allow dealers to verify that a potential costumer is eligible. All of the responsibility, and liability, is placed solely on the licensed dealers. Because of the lack of responsibility taken on the part of the state, the only means a dealer has to determine a potential buyer’s eligibility lies in the section of the legislation that mandates the purchaser supply the dealer with a “written declaration” they have not made a purchase within the last thirty days. The section also specifically prohibits use of the declaration in defense of any action taken against the dealer by the state.
As for the laws that already exist that address trafficking problems, the drafters of this bill, if they were truly interested in preventing illegal firearm traffic, should have done their research. According to 18 U.S.C. 923(g)(3), 27 CFR 178.126a, any licensed (dealer) that sells more than one handgun to an individual during a period of five consecutive business days, must report said sale on ATF Form 3310.4 and must forward the form to the ATF on the day of the second sale. A copy of the form must also be sent to the state police or the local law enforcement agency where the sale occurred. On the state level, sales of multiple firearms could easily be tracked with the use of the FA-10 form. This form is used for all transactions, both personal and dealer related, that take place within Massachusetts. Also, citizens even though properly licensed are limited to the transfer of no more than four firearms, rifles or shotguns in one calendar year to another licensed person other than a dealer. In addition there is Chapter 269, Section 10E which provides harsh punishments for those convicted of actually trafficking firearms within the Commonwealth.
Results:
Because all of the responsibility and liability does lie in the hands of licensed dealers, the sale of handguns and high capacity rifles/shotguns will most likely come to an end as soon as the law is passed. After all, any dealer who is convicted of a non-eligible sale will face a fine of not more than $5,000 or by imprisonment of not more than two and one-half years, or by both such fine and imprisonment; and for any subsequent offense shall be punished by a fine of not less than $1,000 and not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not more than five years, or by both such fine and imprisonment. These penalties are all disqualifiers for any firearms licenses in Massachusetts.
Supporters of this legislation will say that licensed dealers would only be prosecuted if they had “actual knowledge that the person has purchased, rented or leased a firearm or large capacity weapon within the previous thirty days”. However, if action is brought against a dealer, how are they to prove that they did not know? It is impossible to prove a negative and given the recent history of the persecution of legitimate firearms dealers by the Attorney General, it is logical to believe that very few, if any, dealers are going to do business under his cloak of political prosecution. It should also be noted that, because of the poor language within the proposed law, prosecutions under this new law would most likely be very costly to the taxpayers and the dealer.
PART IV
History:
At the start of the new legislative session in 2001, several bills were filed that addressed the issue of ballistic imaging. These bills would require that all new handguns and rifles sold in the Commonwealth, be test fired and a sample of the casing and the projectile be provided to the state law enforcement agencies that would then set up a “ballistics fingerprinting imagery library”. The concept was that if all handgun and rifle ballistics were on file, it would make it much easier to solve crimes that involved ballistic evidence.
Political Sound Bite:
Supporters said -- “This is merely a step in the right direction in creating a law enforcement tool that would aid in the solving of crimes committed with guns.”, “Several other states have already implemented similar laws with great success.”
The Facts:
The most obvious detractor of this legislation is that it relies on ballistic evidence collected from new firearms. Because of this, the reliability of any ballistics evidence recovered from a crime scene many years from the testing date would be in serious question. This is caused by the natural wear of firearms as they are used and/or worked on. This continual wear of the rifling and the extractor parts of the firearms would make ballistic matching more difficult with every year that passed. These same changes in ballistic markings would be most likely all a defense attorney would need to have any such evidence thrown out of court.
The cost effectiveness of the program is also in serious question. First of all, the funding to create such an enormous imaging database has not even been discussed by the bills proponents. For instance, as of the writing of this article, the state of Maryland has successfully cataloged only 400 casings at a cost of two million dollars.
The costs to manufacturers must also be taken into consideration. Some of the proponents of the legislation have stated that it would be the manufacturers that would actually be responsible for setting up the imagery systems. Which would place a great financial and legal liability burden on these companies.
Maryland and New York of the states with such a law only require samples of casings. Just this requirement caused the industry problems because each state required different kinds of packaging and labeling for the samples provided. The capturing and packaging of projectiles would cause even greater expense and confusion. We have been told by industry representatives that the technology to capture reliable ballistics evidence for rifles does not exist. Remember, the “casing” is not the bullet. They are two different parts of the cartridge, which require substantially different techniques to obtain samples.
Of course, the success of finding a potential match depends on many things: Was the firearm legally sold in Massachusetts and cataloged? Was the firearm modified in any way (Such as changing the action, or cutting down the barrel which would greatly effect ballistics)? Was the type of ammunition used to provide a sample the same type that was recovered as evidence?
We would hope that before any legislator would jump to support this legislation, they would take the time to research the technical aspects of the ballistics evidence realm. By doing so they would very easily discover what sort of ballistics evidence could be reasonably captured and/or reliably used. Those individuals that take the time to learn, would also find information that would destroy any credibility to the argument that such samples might only cost manufacturers about a dollar each, as some have suggested.
Results:
Since no one has come forward with any realistic projections on how this system would be set up, utilized, or funded, we can only imagine what sort of bureaucratic chaos would be created upon its implementation. The state of Maryland is currently seeking an avenue to “sunset” their ballistics registry system because of the enormous expense and lack of usefulness.
We have been told by industry representatives, that the technology to capture reliable ballistics evidence for rifles does not exist. We can only come to the conclusion that if these bills were to become law, the sale of rifles in the state of Massachusetts would cease. This should also be of serious concern to law enforcement agencies themselves, since there seems to be no exemption for rifles sold to law enforcement agencies, it is reasonable to assume that these agencies would not be able to purchase these types of firearms.
Forward
With these four pieces of legislation and regulation, we can realistically expect the end of all handgun and rifle sales within the state of Massachusetts. This being the case, the proponents of more firearm regulation or legislation can be seen in no other light than someone who is seeking to end the private ownership of firearms. This is not a case of a “paranoid, radical, gun lobby” trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. The facts are plain and simple. All of these bills and regulations have been drafted without consulting the industry or the representatives of gun owners’. With this in mind it is logical to assume the supporters do not want our assistance because they do not accept our existence.
The irrefutable fact is that as our rights to Keep and Bear Arms diminishes, society as a whole worsens. As cities and towns outright ban guns, their crime rates sky rocket. The media continues to show us that violent outbursts in certain areas, such as near schools or private office buildings, are becoming more common. Is this trend because there is a greater threat in these areas, or is it because government’s and industry’s bans on the lawful possession of firearms in certain areas has created free fire zones for criminals.
As society continually tells children that guns are evil and represent violence, these children react in a manner that they feel is expected of them when they come in contact with them. As government, impotent at reducing crime, further restricts the lawful ownership of firearms in its attempt to create an illusion as an answer to criminal activities, the criminals get further out of control while the law abiding suffers from the actions of both parties.
Can anyone honestly say that as we, as a society, have begun demonizing firearms and shirking responsibility for personal actions, that we have improved anything in our lives? The answer is absolutely no! Since 1998 crime in Massachusetts has begun to increase. The blame for this lies in the hands of those who sponsored and supported Chapter 180 of the Acts of 1998. The legislation was supposed to have had an effect on crime. Unfortunately, as we tried to inform legislators some three years ago, it actually became a catalyst that created an increase in crime.
It is time we as a society returned to our roots and remodeled our country to be one of strength, dignity and pride. This will never occur as long as law-abiding citizens are being held accountable for the actions of criminals.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
