Even before the Newtown tragedy, Massachusetts had some of the most stringent gun laws in America. Now, the national mood has embolded lawmakers to seek more. Any gun control bill must be practical, and safeguard the rights within the Second Amendment. A new bill from state Representative David Linsky, a Democrat from Natick, is a good way to launch a serious debate, because it takes many cues from the public health field. Rather than simply attempt to ban certain weapons, it tries to influence the behavior of gun owners.
For instance, Linsky’s bill would require gun owners to purchase liability insurance, with rates that could vary depending on the type of weapon and storage situation. Gun owners fear that the state could use such a mandate as a stealth way to outlaw guns, by making insurance too costly to obtain. Indeed, the premiums should be based only on a rational accounting of the risks presented by gun ownership, the way that having a pool raises the cost of homeowner’s insurance.
Comments
When the Globe sais "Linsky" I assumed that it was referring to the famous Chicago "Community Organizer" Saul Linsky, the inspiration for Barack Obama
Some of the most ridiculous regulations I have ever seen. We've seen what strict gun control laws do for gun violence rates in Chicago and Washington DC. This state will go along with his insane ideas though.
This is nosensical, and simply another way to try and continue the demonization of law-abiding firearms owners.
How about looking at the 'public health' aspects of automobile ownership? They certainly kill and maim far more Bay State citizens than firearms do.
And if you are going to look at the health aspects, you need to factor in that firearms are legally used at least 800,000 times a year to defend law-abiing citizens and police from injury, rape or death.
Ask the UK about the public health impacts of repressive gun laws.
After banning the private ownership of firearms, they saw their violent crime rate shoot up to almost 5 times what we have in the US. They are the most violent country in the UK.
That would certainly be something to look at from a public health viewpoint.
Let's look at the regulation and insurance requirements for car owners. They certainly save lives. Why not have similar regulations and insurance requirements of gun owners? Perfectly reasonable to ensure public safety.
You must be repeating someone's talkin. Points. UK crime rates are *not* five times US rates
Sorry, that should be "They are the most violent country in the EU."
For a world-renound newspaper this commenting software is pitiful...
Well I'm a gun owner too, but I just don't see anything in the current debate that scares the heck out of me. But then I'm not paranoid and I don't fear black helicopters. There is nothing fearful about a discussion regarding rational gun regulations. Except the irrational things some folks like the NRA, which I quit long ago, say about a rational discussion about gun regulations. So I'll let the zealots rant and rave at each other on this one.
I expected better from you, Turk. The gun owners in Canada did not see black helicopters and were not paranoid. Neither were the Australian gunowners, nor the British gun owners. Then one day they were told to turn in their guns, not just "assault rifles" but most of their guns, or face fines and stiff jail sentences. It was all very "rational".
You can Google some of it and watch the police in those places confiscating weapons, not assault weapons, but hunting weapons. It was a nice, easy step by step "rational" approach.
Because someone can envision the future does not make them "paranoid" or "irrational" or a "zealot".
You obviously have missed the likes of Dianne Feinstein "Mr. and Mrs America, turn in your guns, all of them", she said that back in the 90's. That is what some of these people have as a goal. What part of that do YOU fail to understand?
"States with low gun ownership rates and strong gun laws have the lowest rates of gun death according to a new analysis by the Violence Policy Center (VPC) of 2009 national data (the most recent available) from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control."
See the full story here http://www.vpc.org/press/1204death.htm
"Cities with NO gun ownership and Strong Laws have the highest murder rates" See the REAL LIFE story in Chicago.
2009 is NOT the most recent data available, that can be obtained from the FBI website. The VPC is renowned for laundering data to suit it's purpose.
History,
Chicago's gun laws are strict, but the state of Illinois' gun laws are not. It's easy to bring guns in over the city lines. In fact, there is an infamous gun shop located just outside of city lines (Chuck's) that sells many guns that are brought into the city.
The first point in this article addresses the insurance "idea" of Linsky. Several insurance companies have already looked at this and said it is a non starter. Comparing cars and guns has never been a good idea. The insurance companies would have no idea if an owner actually secured his guns on a regular basis for starters. Furthermore, exactly who is being insured against what? Obviously illegal gun owners are not going to apply for insurance. So is the idea here to have legal gun owners pay for damages that perpetrated by criminals? Does anyone really think that is going to stand any sort of test in the courts? Linsky is just performing political theater.
The second Linsky idea is to store so called assault weapons at gun clubs. The article acknowledges the danger of putting that many weapons in one place, where criminals know there will be lots of them. Dumb idea. A Linsky dumb idea. The author then states that the weapons are not used for sport or self defense. Says whom? The AR15 is used almost exclusively by varmint hunters these days, it is also used by many people for home defense as the weapon of choice. Just who are Linsky and the author to decide what a person can use to defend themselves? (please do not get stupid with the nuclear bomb and hand grenade comments, we already have laws prohibiting those)
Then we have the tax. Ahhh, the tax. This is Massachusetts afterall, someone has to get their hands on some money. Gunowners already pay $100 in licensing fees. They already pay sales tax on supplies and weapons. The state doesn't need any more of their money.
The last idea is referred to in this article as "waiving their perogatives". How cute. How about "surrendering their rights"? Namely their rights to privacy. Repackaging violating rights at its finest. Having to give up one right, in order to excercise another, REALLY?
How about the gun owners of this state start a real push, drag this state through its own muck, haul it into the Supreme Court like has been done to the City of Chicago and have it explained to the liberals like Linsky what the Constitution actually says, since he appears to have landed here from somewhere like the old Soviet Union?
BTW, none of Linsky's "ideas" are about influencing the behavior of gun owners. It is purely about making it more and more difficult to own a gun in the state. Linsky is taking his cues from how it is done in places like the UK.
This comment has been removed.
It all boils down to the question, How are legally purchased guns finding their way into the hands of those who should never have them? There should be a foolproof way to track gun ownership and transactions and laws to penalize those who either though neglect or irresponsible sales contribute to our horrendous situation. The NRA has been instumental in reducing funds for gun tracking. Funding should be increased in light of the numbers of guns in the wrong hands.
PV: How about just really penalizing those who use guns in the commission of crimes? It seems to me and a lot of other gun owners that criminals who use guns get plea bargained down, taking all the teeth out of laws that were passed to address the use of guns in violent crimes.
It also seems that there is the idea that we should somehow "track down" the original owner of the gun and find that person at fault when a gun is used in a crime. Sort of go on a witch hunt and determine that the gun was not properly secured. We do not do that when a car is stolen and it is used to kill someone, or anything else for that matter.
We can make all sorts of laws forcing gunowners to sell through FFL's, that is for sure. As soon as that happens, the criminals will obtain all of their guns through burglaries. Then the police will spend their time proving that the legal gun owner did not properly secure his gun, and turn him into a felon, just to make someone guilty. They already do that here in Mass. By the way, it is not so much the police, as the prosecutors who are trying to make names for themselves.
Your point is interesting. You are aware MA already registers all guns? Of course, all the illegal guns are said to come from "out of state". Baloney. Anyone who thinks that has a screw loose. When the laws were passed here, many people just said to heck with it, did not register their guns, did not go pay a fee for the privilege to do so. Those guns get stolen, given away, etc. They eventually appear somewhere. When the police have a "buyback", does anyone think all those guns came in from out of state to be turned in by little old ladies?
Why did the Marshfield police captain not have his permit revoked when he lost his gun in the rest room? Most people secure their cares using the best methods available. Refusing to do anything because there is no perfect solution is irresponsible. We have to do our best. I've known people who had guns with the numbers ground off for "throwaways". Another registration method has to be invented. People who have guns stolen or lost should be carefully scrutinized before being allowed to possess again. These events should be examined to identify causes. I have heard also you can go to Florida or Arizona and return with a trunkload of guns. You are right that stronger penalties are in order for gun use in commission of a crime.
PV: I am always a bit perplexed at this fascination with "registering" guns and registration numbers many people have on the east coast. Here is why:
Let's say that a person with a registered weapon used that weapon to commit a murder. Obviously, the perp would not want to have that weapon discovered by police. The reason being that he would not want the ballistics to match up. If the police suspected him, and he had disposed of the weapon by dumping it in the ocean, that is not sufficient evidence to convict him of murder. It makes him more of a suspect, for sure. But the prosecutor still has to amass a lot more evidence to bring him to trial and get a conviction.
But, more importantly, a large portion of murders are committed by people the police have no idea to check whether they still have guns that are registered to them. Indeed, even if a national registry were put in place, criminals would be using stolen guns to commit their crimes.
Canada put in place a massive registration scheme after their gun laws went into effect. After many years and billions of dollars, they concluded it had not helped them solve even one case. They have defunded it as a waste of time and money.
What I see is most people taking a negative approach to the gun issue. I see new gun owners not having a clue about properly securing their guns, handling them, etc. They are not even educated enough to not talk about having them in their homes to other people. Education of gun owners could go a long way in stopping these problems. Many of the deaths that occur are not homicides as we all know. They are accidents. Gun owners should plan on getting much better training than they currently get to reduce that problem. We should be pushing for much better education if a person wants to own a firearm. Serious education.
Here is a classic for you: How many times have we heard that someone shoots themselves while "cleaning a gun"? If you believe that is actually what happened, I have a bridge on I-95 to sell you. It may happen once in a great while when unloading the gun to clean it, but it is far more likely that the person was "fooling around" with the gun and shot himself. Who wants to tell the EMT that they were "fooling around"? it sounds much better to say they were "cleaning their gun".
"History" This isn't Canada, nor Australia. It's the US. If the SC turns against you then I'd be concerned, but guess what?
Ain't gonna happen.
Turk, tell that to the gun owners over in NY state, who will shortly become felons if they do not turn in their weapons, or sell them to someone in another state.
We all know that it takes YEARS to get cases before the SC, meanwhile, rights are trampled on. It has been going on in this miserable excuse for a state for over 30 years. PC's deciding if someone is "suitable". Are you kidding? What is "suitable"? Their skin color, age, sex, overall looks?
NE states and CA have been playing a cute little legal game for years, violating people's rights. And it continues.
Cuomo just pushed through his law with no public debate, discussion. That smacks of tyranny. It is interesing how anti gunners get all jiggy whenever a gunowner talks about fighting back, but they are mute when a governor like Cuomo pulls a stunt like that and then will enforce it by shoving black rifles in citizens faces.
Linskey's proposal sound like another Massachusett's ruse to collect more taxes and levy fees.