Pages
Stay In Touch
More
© 2021 The Somerville Times. All rights reserved.
By Joseph A. Curtatone
(The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries and letters to the Editor of The Somerville Times belong solely to the authors and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville Times, its staff or publishers)
This summer, I stood with 18 other Massachusetts mayors in support of Attorney General Maura Healey’s decision to actively enforce the Commonwealth’s 1998 ban on assault weapons. The law banned guns like the AR-15 and AK-47 and “copies or duplicates” of those weapons. These guns represent a military level of firepower and have been banned at both the federal and state levels at various points. We’re talking about a level of weaponry we do not want in our communities, on par with hand grenades and rocket launchers. These guns are made to kill a large number of people in a short amount of time.
Yet gun manufacturers have found ways to make what they claimed were “Massachusetts complaint” guns that AG Healey’s investigation determined were really just duplicates of the banned weapons. The changes have been cosmetic while the weapons remain just as lethal. It’s a classic case of an industry trying to create a loophole in order to skirt regulation, and the gun makers have been getting away with it for a long time. Fortunately AG Healey investigated the matter and has made it clear she intends to enforce the letter of the law. We banned assault weapons and included language to make sure the gun industry couldn’t market copycat versions of the banned weaponry.
Predictably the pro-gun lobby, led by the NRA, has reacted with its standard issue talking points that refuse to acknowledge the public safety concerns of putting this type of firepower into circulation. The reason we have an assault weapon ban is because we recognize a percentage of guns will find their way into the possession of people with nefarious intentions. It’s bad enough when that’s a handgun, but it’s terrifying when it’s an assault weapon.
Even our police generally do not take to the streets armed with assault weapons and military grade firepower. People around the country have voiced legitimate concerns about the militarization of police forces, a concern shared by police officers. They don’t want to be in an arms race. They don’t want to head out for their jobs each day like they’re on a SEAL Team Six mission inside Afghanistan. Talk to pretty much any police chief and they’ll tell you they fully support the assault weapons ban. It’s a matter of basic common sense and officer safety.
Yet we’ll surely have to fight through a standard bout of gun politics even though this is simply a case of the AG enforcing an established law with broad support throughout Massachusetts. It’s important to remember—and acknowledge—that most gun owners support comprehensive background checks, a federal database of gun sales and prohibiting those convicted of domestic violence or on the no-fly list from purchasing a gun. It’s a relatively small, but well-funded group led by the NRA that makes the noise on these issues. Their aim is to scare politicians into ignoring the will of the people, or in this case ignoring our own gun control laws.
Fortunately mayors, who work most directly with public safety issues, aren’t as easily shaken. I can tell you why. Whenever there’s a report of a mass shooting on the news, you realize that there but for the grace of God goes your community. It can happen anywhere. We are on the front lines for gun violence every day. Nothing the NRA can say is scarier than that.
That’s why you saw a large group of mayors supporting AG Healey. Congressman Seth Moulton, an Iraq War combat veteran, has also been outspoken on the need to ban military-style assault weapons from civilian ownership. That’s because he understands the destructive power of these weapons and recognizes they constitute a threat to public safety. The NRA’s usual bag of tricks isn’t going to work in Massachusetts, but they’ll try it all the same. What happened last week was a small demonstration of how in Massachusetts when it comes to assault weapons, no means no.
If you found this article of interest, please consider sharing it.
So mr. Mayor do you also believe that the ag has a a right to skip due process as well?
The main intent of the Second Amendment was to create an on call
militia able to repel invasion. But the British didn’t come back, and today
this country has the strongest military in the world, and including as
many, or more, aircraft carriers as the rest of the world combined. With
the last congressional estimate of the number of firearms in this country
at over 300 million – and similar to the population total – do we really
need assault weapons to enable an even bigger wild west show? If you
wish to use an assault weapon, go join the military. How much must we
knock ourselves over the head with common sense for it to be so?
Mr. Mayor,
19 Mayors out of 351 cities and towns in the Commonwealth? Pretty powerful stuff.
With all due respect, Massachusetts Law was written to be the same as the Federal Law, it even says so in the law. A set of standards was written into the Federal Law and State Law even references the Federal standard as being the standard to be used by the Commonwealth.
The ATF, a Federal Agency, worked with Firearms Manufacturers to determine what was legal and illegal under the law. The law clearly defines the characteristics that make up a “Banned” weapon.
Since 1994, the definition has been the same, although the Federal Ban expired in 2004, Massachusetts reinforced its ban and again tied its definition to the expired Federal Law.
There are no “Loop Holes”, it is established law as set by the Massachusetts Legislature who purposely referenced Federal Law.
What the Attorney General did on July 20th was Illegal and an overreach of her authority. It was purposely timed to give maximum exposure with no time for the Legislature to respond until the next session in January.
Is this the Government “We The People” fought for? I think NOT!
The AG acted as a Calculating Tyrant!
She skipped “Due Process” and the entire Legislative Process and you seem to think it’s okay?
Shame on you Sir, do you not remember the Oath you took to Protect and Defend the Constitution and the Laws of the Commonwealth?
Or is Law by Edict your new standard?
Skip, if you can, that this time it is about Guns. Think about what giving one person this type of power means? Today it is guns, but tomorrow what will it be? She is suing Exxon/Mobil, will she decide that combustion engines are banned and we must use public transportation or buy electric vehicles?
Go ahead and laugh, it’s ridiculous to think that one person could change the law on a whim?
After all, I went to bed one night as a Law Abiding Citizen and woke up as a Potential Felon. She hasn’t decided yet whether she will prosecute, she has left that as something that she can change at any time.
Democracy or Tyranny, you tell me?
Thank you to Mayor Curtatone for writing and “The Somerville Times” for publishing this outstanding opinion piece. Attorney General Maura Healey’s work to reduce gun violence and promote public health & safety is exemplary.
By the way Peter H. Yes, the British DID come back!
I weep that the city that was home to the Powder Alarm, which saw a Lt Governor removed, is now home to view such as this.
The 2nd was there to make sure the populace always had access to military grade weapon. As for the founding fathers not anticipating th rifles of today, remember they had private ownership of artillery and ships of war, so I think they would me fine with M4s.
Our AG is wrong in both her motive and her reinterpretation of a long standing law.
Really, Kenneth? So the British came back? I don’t see them. Do you
have them all locked up in your basement polishing your guns?
“Really, Kenneth? So the British came back? I don’t see them. Do you
have them all locked up in your basement polishing your guns?”
The war of 1812? And the 2nd was, as is well document in many letters of the time, as much to allow the citizens of this country to defend themselves from our own government in case it tried to deprive of us of our rights.
What, the government would never do that? They are doing it right now by trying to take away the 2nd amendment. I think you could also find a lot of other groups, some with signs hanging from city hall, that would also tell you they want protection from our own government.
Although I do not own a gun or intend to I have no interest in them. But common sense says no matter what the law does the guns will still be in the hands of people that should not have them. I do not see any way the law will change the problem. They can make all the laws they want but the problem will still exist. I know I have no answer to solve it. Crime will keep marching on(reality).
Really, BMac? As JMac said, “You cannot be serious!” You want to
defend yourself from our political administrations? Take a look at the
very extensive lists of presidents, politicians, and political activists who
have been killed or wounded by the likes of you. But while you’re in a
gun toting mood, why not add one more? Though sorry excuse for a
person Trump is going to lose anyway, so you can stay home and polish
your bullets. A Moore is correct: 300 million firearms won’t go away. But
there’s always hope that some of you have accidents in the home.
Right? And then a few of you might go away.
The second amendment is flawed in light of modern times. Remember the marathon bombing. Within hours the military was mobilized and the city was effectively shut down. We had tanks rolling down the streets of Arlington. The notion that an individual or an individual and 30 of his best friends have any hope of successful insurrection demands that they should be relieved of their firearms due to mental insufficiency. We need to get over the idea than civilian ownership of weapons should be for anything other than sport. Owners and weapons should be licensed, registered and periodically reviewed similar to cars. This is reasonable. What I would like is to never have to think about private ownership of guns.
PeterH, I hope your hate keeps you warm. You will notice all the people in a “gun toting mood” have been polite and respectful to you.
We think you are wrong and possibly misremember some of what you learned in grade school but we can do it with out name calling or hoping bad things happen to you.
Too bad you could not be a polite and constructive member of society.
Back the the Mayor’s letter.
The MA legislature copied the Federal AWB pretty much verbatim. What the AWB did was set out a list of features and said if you had a semi-automatic rifle with a removable magazine and two or more of these features you are an Assault Weapon, if you had less two you were not.
The obvious point was congress decided that these features decide what is and is not an Assault Weapon and therefor what is and is not banned.
Gun makers and the NRA did not make these decisions, the legislature did. The gun makers and legal firearms owners said fine, we will live by your rules.
We removed those features from our rifles so that they would not, by legal definition as codified, be Assault Weapons, but just rifles.
There were no loop holes here.
This was compliance with the laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
One thing I had thought of is that at times I have wanted to own a gun for protection. But thinking that if I put that away properly I would never be able to get it in time for what I may need it for. I am sure there will come a time when technology will advance so much it will detect a weapon long before it can be used. Though not soon enough.
BMac, no: no lack of memory, no hate, and no close-mindedness. It’s a
matter of individual perception and considered perspective, plus some
expressions of irony and levity. So when you question the nature of my
right to speak as I will, how far are we from some gun toting person
deciding I shouldn’t speak at all? If we come to blows in a bar, those
around tell us to calm down; if we fight with guns it’s a different outcome.
I’d much sooner eat a turkey that you shot in the wild than eat a chicken
from a factory farm. So we add this second aspect, and get to the hunters
of this country. Of those 300 million firearms here, most are owned by
20% of the population, and most of that 20% are hunters. The majority
of hunters own 5 to 10 guns, and a number influenced by hunting
regulations for specific game birds and animals. If, for example, it’s seen
as unsporting to shoot a deer from long range with a rifle, then the
regulation says try to shoot it short range with a shotgun. And hunters
typically have a pistol to finish off their prey. And there’s much regulation
to deal with: even on the federal level you had the Gun Control Act of
1968, the Brady Act of 1993 – overturned – leading to NICS…FFL’s, triple
‘I’, NCIC, NLETS, and other data systems used by the FBI, ATF, and
state and local law enforcement; and then forms like 4473 and 3310.4.
And then different states participate in different ways, and have state
laws too. I get it, BMac, that you’re up to your neck in paperwork and
endless regulations, and politicians that try to change the value system.
But consider their perspective too, that it’s better to play safe: those
30 odd thousand homicides in this country per year far exceeds any
other country, and where many countries have less than 100 per year
from firearms; consider too the equally large number of suicides from
guns in the US. And, yes, you have the CJIS in MA, and DCJIS, and
IAFIS, MIRCS….agencies and regulations, huh? So, yes, law abiding
gun owners and hunters will suffer from extensive regulation because
of the gun violence in this country. But, again, put yourself in any
responsible politicians shoes, and you’d be strict on regulation too. You
saw the issue of guns coming into MA from Maine – it made the news
recently – and being involved in violent crime. This goes on and on.
But your life could be more restrained: there’s the topic of the ease of
acquiring ammunition; there’s the present and future possibility of coding
and numbering bullets effectively, and where each one you fire would
be required to be entered in a log book.
Guns? 300 million in this country and politicians will regulate them.
Maybe we can try religion next? And go from Adam to Noah, and then
to those 3 who spent too much time talking to their camels in the hot
sun – Abraham, Jesus, and Mohamed – and made up God as a facet
of their imagination and out of a need for social control, and so that
the few would create inequality for the many. Bernie’s 1%. Oxfam’s
report that 40% of the World’s money wealth was in the hands of about
250 people. And we can do it from gender to, and why the MA legislature
just passed an equal pay law in 2016. And we can reason that much in
this world in still in the Stone Age, and that people haven’t progressed
much. So, yes, I’d like guns well regulated and controlled – and bullets
too – because Mr BMac, though you ain’t one of those gun toting
crazies, there’s plenty out there who are, and in a world that still needs
to grow up and be responsible. And we have plenty of precedents in
this country for folks getting shot for saying far less controversial things
than I just mentioned. But then if I’d have been a slave I might have
wanted a Heaven too, and to make up for the raw deal I just got. You
see? Religion was the opiate of the people. And guns? You have a
strong argument if you talk about the history of this country and talk
about how guns put food on the table. Killing off native Americans and
each other…..A matter of perspective. 1 person, 1 vote, 1 say.
What? No bazookas allowed in Somerville? Outrageous! 🙂
” PeterH says:
September 24, 2016 at 8:27 am
BMac, no: no lack of memory, no hate, and no close-mindedness. It’s a
matter of individual perception and considered perspective, plus some
expressions of irony and levity. So when you question the nature of my
right to speak as I will, how far are we from some gun toting person
deciding I shouldn’t speak at all?”
At no point did I say you did not have a right to say any of what you said.
If you find anywhere in my words that I did, I whole heartedly apologize unconditionally.
You did ask questions that had obvious answers and made statements that were demonstrably wrong.
You did also say “But
there’s always hope that some of you have accidents in the home.
Right? And then a few of you might go away.”
And I find that to be an interesting way to try to have a discussion with someone. To hope they have a fatal accident?
I think it goes beyond irony. I can’t see how someone who claims to be open minded and lacking hate wishes to see anyone die, regardless of their view point.
As for politicians regulating firearms, how has that worked through out our history with other things? Prohibition? The War on Drugs?
If you like tedious documents, read the US DOJ report on Boston’s Operation Cease Fire.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/188741.pdf
Top of page 47. If you want to stop violence, focus on the violent.
Focus on guns and drugs did little to stop violence.
So what do you want to do? Stop violence or focus on gun violence which is just one symptom of the underlying disease?
We have had private firearms for centuries and now it is a problem? Why? Did the firearms change? The M16 has been for sale to the public since the early 60’s.
Horse hockey. You oh-so polite, responsible “good guys with guns” scare the hell out of normal people. You’re completely polite and responsible right up to the instant you blow a bunch of innocent people away. Oops. You have no business owning these types of weapons. None of your double-talk will obscure this. You’re obviously seriously ill, mentally. This is focus on the violent.
Yes, Oliver. How about signs on certain side streets saying “Bazooka Zone. Drivers speed down here at their own risk.”
I apologize also, BMac, for my sense of humor. I wasn’t wishing you ill,
but rather suggesting that the firearms conversation has no end. If we
go back to that 2009 study out of Congress estimating civilian firearms,
there was 114 million hand guns, 110 million rifles, 86 million shotguns,
and 2.5 million ‘assault’ weapons. After the number of schools, cinemas,
malls, places of work, clubs, and so on, that have been shot up in recent
years, most politicians, and most people don’t have too much sympathy
for gun rights when it comes to the area of automatic or ‘assault’ arms.
You know this. And we know that if it can happen at Sandy Hook, then
it can happen in Somerville. So, for the most part, in this era of violence
we have now, you’ll have to suck up the changing regulations. But if we
go back to hunting for a second, then isn’t a better idea of ‘sport’ based
on 1 shot from 1 cartridge, and where you need to reload the weapon
to continue? I’d think deer and ducks might be voting for that.
I have a friend who’s a duck hunter. I used to read his back issues of
the ‘American Hunter’, the NRA’s magazine. It had some good articles.
But the opinion pieces from management were out to lunch, and where
there was a clear value to use arms rather than ‘bear arms’. Their ‘Armed
Citizen’ pieces encouraged fear as a feeling, because how can you know
you’re not threatened, so you’d best shoot first and ask questions later.
It would make the NRA happy if every home or apartment dweller had a
gun to protect themselves in this climate of paranoia; it would not – we
know without asking – make any police officer happy. Nor would it make
most of us happy: those damn bullets fly around, cross streets, and get
up to all kinds of no good.
So, no, assault type weapons – automatic weapons – ain’t happening if
enough folks get their heads on straight. There are so many guns out
there that we should take any sensible restriction of them we can get.
And now we discuss what that word ‘sensible’ means. But after Sandy
Hook and such the meaning changes, and we hope – if politicians do
their jobs correctly – that this change of meaning is reflected by political
administrations, and, yes, as local as Somerville City Hall.