Even Massachusetts, with some of the strongest gun laws in the country, has come under increasing pressure from the gun lobby in recent years. The most prominent example is what happened to Governor Patrick’s call for the Legislature to limit gun purchases to one a month, to halt “straw” purchases by people who want to illegally resell weapons on the street. In 2010, after a spate of youth killings on the streets of Boston, the Rev. Ray Hammond spoke out in support of the legislation, asking, “What will it take? Do we have to have more of our 14-year-olds shot?”
But the proposal never went anywhere. Jim Wallace of the Northborough-based Gun Owners Action League called the proposal “the Lawful Citizens Imprisonment Act,” because it would punish people who bought more than one firearm per month. In fact, the proposal is a common-sense way to separate those with interests in hunting, self-defense, or collecting from those stockpiling arms for any reason — including to amass the kind of arsenals that helped enable the attacks in Newtown, Conn., and Aurora, Colo., this year. It may be true that some hunters or collectors could be inconvenienced if they wanted to buy multiple guns, but they could learn to spread out their purchases.
Comments
Oh sure, 12 a year will certainly take care of our problems.....we can just keep ignoring mental illness in this country, amazing, just amazing.
Mrs. Lanza was sane and owned the guns and bullets - it obviously never mattered to anyone that knew she was purchasing them that she lived with a very sick son. Mental illness and gun ownership are two very separate and distinct conversations. Overlapping them does not solve the problem. Mental illness is terminal.
mental illness is not reporeted or kept in national database. if it were, the gun owner could have been precluded from having the guns (the same as if her son was a convicted felon). End HIPAA for law enforcement, and rewquire a database. fix the PROBLEM - don;t dance around it.
"In fact, the proposal is a common-sense way to separate those with interests in hunting, self-defense, or collecting from those stockpiling arms for any reason — including to amass the kind of arsenals that helped enable the attacks in Newtown, Conn., and Aurora, Colo., this year." This statement makes no sense at all. The shooter in Aurora did in fact stockpile weapons, but Lanza did no such thing. I doubt that Nancy Lanza went out and bought all of the weapons on the same day. Now attaching mental illness records to a national data base might help in some cases, but not all. Reinstating the assault rifle and large capacity magazine ban would help too, but now, thanks to Bush, there are so many of these weapons on the street we would never be able to get them all back.
Lanza had nine weapons. How many did she need? Then the guns wind up in the wrong hands.
How many did she need? As many as she wanted. You are aware we do live in a free country?
This "need" question is always amazing. Do people really "need" big honking SUVs? 10,000 sq ft homes? Private jets? Yachts? Vacation homes? Yea, I know, they do not kill people, but they do consume all sorts of resources and contribute to "global warming" (not that I really believe it is caused by people). The point is, determining what someone can have based on their "need" has never been a hallmark of this country.
Try telling the folks on Wall Street what they can have based on what they "need", including their concealed carry permits.
This comment has been removed.
We should have a popular referendum vote, regulating gun numbers, to bypass gun nuts, the NRA, manufacturer's lobbyists and cowardly legislators. There are many more voters in favor of more regulation than the aforementioned parties.
PValen: what you suggest is commonly called "tyranny by democracy". In the wild west, it was the "lynch mob". It is EXACTLY why we have a Republic and EXACTLY why we have a Bill of Rights.
Yeah right, you can't have a rocket launcher either. More tyranny.
And 1 gun per month is going to help solve this problem how????
A) It does not do anything to reduce already amassed arsenals
B) It does not prevent an arsenal from being assembled, ie, 24 guns in two years.
What do states that do not have all our fabulous laws do about this? Evidently no one has to make a "straw purchase", they just go buy their own gun and commit a crime with it if they can pass a NICS check. Do you think Gov, that maybe if you got your law, guns would start flowing in here from those states? Or maybe they already do? You know, it is not 1792 anymore, people move about pretty quickly on the interstates!
Anyway, this is just one more example of someone using the horrible deaths of 20 small children to advance his agenda. DESPICABLE.
One other point: A killer does NOT need to amass an arsenal, just ONE gun is needed. So an "arsenal" does not "enable" a shooting of this type. The Conn State Police state all the murders were committed with ONE weapon.
The point is, many guns wind up in the wrong hands. Better to have one gun stolen than 15.
PValen: His ridiculous proposal is (1) gun per MONTH, not (1) gun per house forever. Therefore, after a year, 12 guns could be stolen. Not to mention there are many homes with lots of guns in them already, so your argument about stolen guns holds very little water. Or, as some would put it "That bus has already left the station".
12 guns a year for one person - and each person in their household - is too much. Why do people need more than one gun? It is not the gangs with stolen guns that are massacaring and killing; it is the 'legally' purchases guns that are killing.
1) carry piece for self defense .45 ACP pistol
2) .22 rifle for target practice (call that fun shooting)
3) 12 ga over/under shotgun for trap shooting league (also fun)
4) .270 bolt action for deer hunting
5) AR15, for Zombies. Just kidding! Seriously, surprisingly the AR15 is popular for the same reasons the military adapted it. Ammuntion is relatively cheap. Recoil is VERY low. Trajectory is excellent. Compared to my hunting rifle (I do not hunt anymore, btw), one thing that is unique about the AR15 is that is sort of "modular", it can be accessorized. Older style weapons required a gun smith to do those things, not the AR15's. I can easily change the type of sights I use without a gun smith. Change grips, etc.
And yes, for my wife and I, the AR15 is for fun shooting. Pure target shooting. You won't find either one of us slinking around corners in black tactical gear, bullet proof vests or any of that.
On the other hand, I am retired. I go about my errands during the day. Most break ins occur during daylight hours. I typically carry my handgun then so that when I come back, if someone has broken in, I will not be surprised and defenseless. Nope, my first choice is not to shoot anyone. You also will not find me down at the mall rushing to defend anyone.
I am pleased that you agree people should be able to own guns, but geeze, could you lose the "guns that are killing"?
irish, i assume that you ar referencing Newtown. the guns used at Newtown were stolen, and used by an unlicensed individual.
The word "inconvenienced" is used here as if the line at the bank was a littel too long, instead of what it really means: removaol of Constitutional Rights by promulgation. If you want to attack the Constitution, do so at a Constitutional Convention.
One Gun A Month: I simply cannot afford it. Will there be state subsidies (perhaps a GBT Card), to help drefray the cost ?
In Massachusetts, where our nation was created based on the personal posession of firearms, we are still having this debate?
One a month and three a year. And a nationwide computerized gun registry.