Senator Scott Brown’s efforts to convince us that he is now more moderate on gun control, though he has long been a reliable vote in the eyes of the National Rife Association and other gun rights groups, seems plausible until one examines his recent position on concealed weapons and his support for the Massachusetts assault weapons ban (“Senate rivals divided on guns,” Page A1, July 27).
Although his opposition to the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act, which would allow gun owners to carry concealed weapons across state lines, might seem courageous, Massachusetts gun owners already have the right to get a permit to carry concealed weapons (though local police can apply certain restrictions). Some out-of-state gun owners may be deterred from bringing in guns, but Brown’s vote is unlikely to risk the ire of many Massachusetts gun owners.
What’s more, Brown’s position in support of the Massachusetts assault weapons ban, but against renewing the federal ban because “the states are the appropriate venue for making these types of decisions,” defies logic. Only last month, Brookline police found a cache of 36 firearms that included assault weapons. Where do they come from?
in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont you can buy an assault weapon at a gun show without a criminal background check for $350. So the question for Brown is: Why, if you support the assault weapons ban in Massachusetts, are you against a federal ban, which by allowing neighboring states to sell assault weapons effectively guts the Massachusetts law?