Massachusetts can be justly proud of its strong gun laws, but that attitude shouldn’t lead to self-congratulation or, worse, complacency. As many states consider tighter gun-control regulations after the Newtown, Conn., massacre last month, Massachusetts has work to do, too. Lawmakers should start by fixing two glaring weaknesses in the Commonwealth’s gun policies: Massachusetts withholds too much information from the public about gun ownership in the state, and lags behind other states in cooperating with the national registry designed to prevent gun sales to dangerous individuals.
Improving the state’s cooperation with the registry, an FBI database used to conduct background checks on potential gun buyers, is the most obvious weakness lawmakers must fix. Unlike most other states, Massachusetts does not regularly forward mental-health records to the registry. After the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007, which might have been prevented if Virginia had sent the mental-health records of shooter Seung-Hui Cho to the database, many states stepped up efforts to share such files. Governor Patrick has proposed forwarding the records of those confined in a state facility for mental issues. That’s a step in the right direction. Still, his plan leaves a large loophole by not covering records for mentally ill patients under private treatment, or who have not yet been confined.
Comments
Privacy goes beyond the issue of mental health. Privacy includes the right of a law abiding citizen to own and use legal products and to lead their lives without fear of governmental and/or media intrusion. Should we have a publicly available registry of people who own violent video games so that their neigbors can choose not to have their children exposed outside of the home? How about one including the names and addresses of individuals infected with STD's? The vast majority of legal gun owners treat their guns with the respect that any potentially dangerous tool deserves, be it powertools, automobiles, or pocket knives. None of us who legally own weapons want to see guns, knives, bombs, etc. in the hands of the dangerously mentally ill or criminals. The vast majority of us are not members of the NRA. We are regular people who have made a choice to exercise our Second Amendment rights in an intelligent and safe manner. Can the editorial writers at the Globe say the are exercising your First Amendment rights with the same degree of caution and balance?
rj, I couldn’t agree with you more. I had the same thought about STD's Imagine the outcry if the Globe called for making public the names and addresses of people with AID's! This is just another effort by the Globe and other liberals to stigmatize law abiding citizens who happen to own guns and to punish a whole class of people that the Globe and liberals disapprove of. Do you think the rich ‘elites’ that run the Globe would be willing to go without the armed guards that they probably have guarding the Globe offices or running security at their posh social events? Don’t think so.
Your lack of knowledge of how the system in this state works is extraordinary when it comes to the issuance of a license.
If a person had a history of "domestic violence", that would be on the person's record, either the Police Chief, or the State Police would see it when the records check is performed on that person. But it is obvious that you would like neighbors to function as police, calling in and saying, "My neighbor yelled at his/her spouse, and they own a GUN!!!!" So now the Police would need to roar out to the house, and DO SOMETHING. Even though no one unlocked the gun or threatened anyone. It is really none of the neighbors business.
Yes, decisions about who gets a license are made on a local level. Your statement about publishing licenses as a check on favoritism and other improper actions by the police is almost laughable. Depending on the town you live in, you might get a license to carry, no restrictions. Next town over, some restrictions. Third town, forget it, PC doesn't issue them. A town may decide that it should take oh, 8-10 months to issue a license, even though STATE LAW says it has to be done in 40 days. That is the reality of Massachusetts, no uniformity, plenty of uncertainty.
You are PROUD of your laws? Really? The rest of the country LAUGHS at Massachusetts. The only people proud of the laws are the ones who would like to trample on the rights of their fellow citizens some more.
And now you want to join the ranks of a newspaper that put innocent people at risk, and cover it by saying it is for "public safety"? WOW. Go ahead, out all the former police officers who have licenses, out people who have TRO's and are hiding from potential attackers, out all judges. Or do you want to create a "special class"?
By the way, go read the FBI crime rates about MA, compared to the rest of the nation, and then tell us all how proud you are of the fabulous gun laws in this state.