Democrat State Party Platforms - Massachusetts To Missouri

Continuing on with my series of posts detailing the position of the individual state Democratic Parties on firearms, we move on to a quintuplet of "M" states.


Massachusetts

The Massachusetts Democratic Party platform actually has very little in it regarding firearms. My supposition is that it was created in 2017 before red flag laws came into vogue and, perhaps more tellingly, because Massachusetts already so much gun control.

From the platform adopted in 2017:

Preventing gun violence through universal background checks and a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

This was from the section entitled, "Public Safety and Crime Prevention", which deals more with the militarization of the police, community policing and corrections, and the like.


Michigan

The Michigan Democratic Party platform calls for "common sense gun safety" which must be the dog whistle code words meaning more gun control. In a section of the platform that deals much more with prison reform than crime, the Democrats have this to say about guns and gun control:

Enact common sense gun safety measures. Democrats recognize the Constitutional right of Americans to keep and bear arms under the 2nd Amendment. The vast majority of Michigan gun owners are responsible citizens and sportsman that value the strong Michigan tradition of hunting and safe use of firearms. Democrats, along with vast majorities of the American public, support common sense gun safety proposals like closing the gun show loophole and preventing potential terrorists from purchasing firearms. If an individual is deemed too dangerous to fly, they should be too dangerous to buy a gun. Democrats also support banning military style weapons, like the AR-15, which has been used in mass shootings in Sandy Hook, Dallas, Orlando, and across the nation.

The Michigan Democrat's platform was one of the first I remember seeing advocating using the "no-fly" list to make one a prohibited person.


Minnesota

The Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor (DFL) Party has much less on gun control in their ongoing party platform than I would have expected. Their section on Public Safety and Crime Prevention only had this to say about firearms:

Reasonable firearm policies that promote public safety and crime prevention without infringing on the rights of hunters and other sports enthusiasts.

Now the question as to what is a reasonable policy is open to discussion. I would call attention to the fact that they don't want to infringe "on the rights of hunters and other sports enthusiasts". They say nothing about those who would use a firearm for self-protection and self-defense. This is interesting as this section also calls for mandatory sentences for drug dealer and rapists as well as stiff penalties for child abuse.

The Minnesota DFL webpage does have an endorsement of March for our Lives and condemns the NRA. That might give you a better feel for what the DFL considers "reasonable firearm policies."


Mississippi

The Mississippi Democratic Party platform was adopted in 2016 and make absolutely no mention of firearms or gun control. It concentrates much more on education and voting rights. Given the history of voting rights in Mississippi in the 1960s, this is understandable.

The Mississippi Democratic Party web presence is a mess. They still have an active website the basically stops in 2008, the one they publicize on Twitter - http://www.mississippidemocrats.org - goes to a suspended webpage, and the one I got the platform from calls itself the classic Mississippi Democratic Party page.


Missouri

The Missouri Democratic Party platform was adopted in August 2018 and calls for reasonable gun control measures. Reasonable is in the eye of the beholder as you can tell below:

Reasonable firearm policies that promote public safety and crime prevention without infringing on second amendment rights. Mandatory background checks and 72-hour waiting periods on the purchase of weapons

• An assault weapons ban
• Keeping daycares, schools, health care providers, churches, and universities as gun-free zones
• Keeping illegal guns off our streets and out of the hands of kids
• Preventing domestic abusers from owning guns

Perhaps not surprising given that Ferguson was in Missouri but the platform endorses Black Lives Matter, body cams for cops, eliminating minimum sentences, and training in non-lethal techniques for police. It also calls for full restitution of voting rights and the ability to hold public office after a sentence is served.

For My Massachusetts Readers - Hearing On Suppressors Today

I should have gotten this out yesterday but better late than never. The Massachusetts Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security will be holding hearings on two bills that would seek to legalize suppressor ownership there.

From the American Suppressor Association who will be testifying at the hearings:

On Thursday, November 16th at 11:00 AM in Room A-1, the Massachusetts Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security will hear two bills which seek to legalize suppressor ownership in Massachusetts. S. 1317, and, S. 1340, would replace the current law that prohibits the possession of suppressors by non-manufacturers with language that allows private individuals to own and possess suppressors so long as they are not (1) prohibited persons; (2) committing a violent felony; (3) committing a crime of violence against a family member; or (4) possessing or selling controlled substances.

The American Suppressor Association will be on hand to testify in support of these bills, but we need your help! If you are a Massachusetts resident, please attend the hearing to show your support. Also, using the contact form below, please contact members of the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security and politely urge them to vote in support of S. 1317 and S. 1340. Do this, even if you plan to attend the hearing in person. 

View our entire blog post HERE and our testimony submitted to the committee HERE.

Good Little Statists

I saw this tweet from the Violence Policy Center applauding the moves yesterday by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey (D-MA) to rule by edict regarding AWB state-compliant firearms.

At Boston press conference, @vpcinfo applauds new enforcement actions announced by @MassAGO against assault weapons. https://t.co/018lEsEsNQ

— ViolencePolicyCenter (@VPCinfo) July 20, 2016

When you consider that their founder and executive director Josh Sugarmann was the person who popularized the term "assault weapons", it all begins to make sense. He meant for the term to be used to confuse the general public into supporting bans under the guise of "anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun".

Healey and Sugarmann are the people that George Orwell warned us about in 1984. They are the good little statists from the Ministry of Love intent on making us submit to their will. The term "assault weapon" is nothing but Newspeak - the controlled language meant to limit freedom of thought. Those earnest men who assembled on Lexington Green in April 1775 must be rolling in their graves to see what has become of their state.

Governing By Edict In Massachusetts

The gun prohibitionists and anti-rights forces just love the word "loophole". They love it so much in Massachusetts that the attorney general has decided to arbitrarily reinterpret the commonwealth's assault weapons (sic) ban.

Attorney General Maura Healey (D-MA) announced her edict in the Boston Globe today. She says that as of today, if a firearm has either components that are interchangeable with AR-15s and AKs from the free states or an "operating system" that is essentially the same, it is banned.

From the Boston Globe:

The gun industry has found a way to exploit our laws, a loophole of potentially horrific proportions. And it’s time we act.

The Massachusetts assault weapons ban mirrors the federal ban Congress allowed to expire in 2004. It prohibits the sale of specific weapons like the Colt AR-15 and AK-47 and explicitly bans “copies or duplicates” of those weapons. But gun manufacturers have taken it upon themselves to define what a “copy” or “duplicate” weapon is. They market “state compliant” copycat versions of their assault weapons to Massachusetts buyers. They sell guns without a flash suppressor or folding or telescoping stock, for example, small tweaks that do nothing to limit the lethalness of the weapon.

That will end now. On Wednesday, we are sending a directive to all gun manufacturers and dealers that makes clear that the sale of these copycat assault weapons is illegal in Massachusetts. With this directive, we will ensure we get the full protection intended when lawmakers enacted our assault weapons ban, not the watered-down version of those protections offered by gun manufacturers.

The directive specifically outlines two tests to determine what constitutes a “copy” or “duplicate” of a prohibited weapon. If a gun’s operating system is essentially the same as that of a banned weapon, or if the gun has components that are interchangeable with those of a banned weapon, it’s a “copy” or “duplicate,” and it is illegal. Assault weapons prohibited under our laws cannot be altered in any way to make their sale or possession legal in Massachusetts.

We recognize that most residents who purchased these guns in the past believed they were doing so legally, so this directive will not apply to possession of guns purchased before Wednesday. In the dozen years since the federal assault weapons ban lapsed, only seven states have instituted their own assault weapons ban. Many of those bans have been challenged (unsuccessfully) by the gun industry, and we anticipate our directive may be too. But our job is to enforce state laws and to keep people safe. This directive does both.

Healey claims a "moral obligation" to come out with this edict. Methinks it more political grandstanding that any sort of moral obligation.

It will be interesting to see what is meant in real life terms by having an "operating system (which) is essentially the same as that of a banned weapon." Does that mean any and all semiautomatic rifles that use direct gas impingement are banned? Or, in the case of an AK, does this mean all firearms with short stroke gas systems are banned?

You have to wonder if Remington will restart their production of their Model 7615P pump action .223 that took AR15 magazines. It would be a nice in your face workaround to Healey's edict.

Hey, JayG! Did You See This?

For those that haven't heard, well-known gun blogger JayG of MArooned is leaving the Volksrepublik of Massachusetts for the Commonwealth of Virginia to take a job there. Jay is leaving one commonwealth where gun rights have long been under attack for one that is currently in the good column.

However, if gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe (D) has his way, Virginia will become the next Colorado. And by this, I mean the pre-recall Colorado with magazine bans and universal background checks. McAuliffe wants to one-up Hickenlooper by also implementing a one-gun-a-month purchase restriction. Like Hickenlooper, he appears to be in Bloomberg's pocket.

From McAuliffe's campaign website:

Support common sense gun control measures As Governor, Terry will support mainstream and majority supported gun control measures like universal background checks, limiting the size of magazines, and a return to the 1-gun-per-month rule. These measures respect Virginians’ right to bear arms while reducing gun violence.

 According to a poll published on Monday in the Washington Post, McAuliffe is leading Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R) by 47 to 39 percent among likely voters. Cuccinelli has been a good supporter of gun rights and this has been recognized by the gun prohibitionists.

JayG better hurry up down to the Old Dominion as I think his vote may well be needed.

As to McAuliffe, I think the Virginia's state motto applies - sic semper tyrannis.

Reporter Charts His Path To Carry Permit In Massachusetts

Michael Hartwell is a staff reporter for the Sentinel and Enterprise of Fitchburg, Massachusetts. Having grown up shooting in Maine and having been threatened more than once as a result of his articles, he decided to apply for his Massachusetts Firearms ID (FID) card and also to get his Class A carry permit.

What clinched it, however, was the way I felt during the manhunt for the second suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings. I didn't feel safe in Leominster, which is less than an hour's drive away from where the suspect was last seen.

Earlier this month, it occurred to me that as a reporter and a Massachusetts resident, I'm in the perfect position to see what impact the state's gun-control laws would have on someone with a clean record who simply wants to exercise their legal rights.

A reporter seeking to exercise his or her rights to purchase a firearm and detailing the difficulties isn't a new story. Emily Miller of the Washington Times detailed her tortuous path to handgun ownership in the series called "Emily Gets Her Gun".  Nonetheless, it is interesting to see the path and the obstacles that Hartwell has to overcome in seeking to get his FID and Class A carry permit.

So far it is a three-part series. The first details his decision to get the FID and Class A carry permit, the second details his training class, and now the third article details the wait times and growth in demand in his town of Leominster.

I live in a shall-issue state so I am somewhat bewildered by the complexity of the process in a may-issue state like Massachusetts. The other thing that has struck me is just how much things can vary by town in terms of who gets a permit, what type of permit, and how long they have to wait to obtain it.

For example if you are a resident in the town of Fitchburg, the local police chief essentially makes you go through a multi-year apprenticeship in order to get your Class A carry permit.

Fitchburg Police Chief Robert DeMoura said the overwhelming majority of applicants pass because people with felony convictions know they would fail and rarely apply. DeMoura said he denies concealed-weapon permits to new shooters 90 percent of the time.

"I will give them a target and hunting permit," said DeMoura. "First and foremost, they just went through a one-day course about firearms, and I just don't feel that they've had enough time to be around a weapon to be able to carry a concealed weapon. My philosophy is that the state law says I have to give them a permit if they qualify -- they don't tell me what kind of permit, but I have to give them a permit. Most of the time I give them a target-hunting (permit)."

He said he makes exceptions if someone needs a license to carry for their job, such as a security officer. As the chief of an urban area, DeMoura said most applicants did not grow up around guns, but he would take into consideration if an applicant has a history of handling firearms.

If someone has had a standard FID card for a year, DeMoura said he is willing to upgrade it to a concealed-weapons permit.

Hartwell, fortunately enough, lives in Leominster.

Still, he has to wait. The next opening for an appointment to submit his application to the firearms licensing clerk there is July 2nd. If he lived in the town of Richmond in western Massachusetts, he could just walk in without an appointment every other Wednesday evening when the Richmond police chief holds office hours. Moreover, the chief himself handles the application.

I certainly have a greater appreciation for how good I have it here in North Carolina and an even greater admiration for people like JayG and Weerd who have taken on the system and gotten their permits.

Smith & Wesson Tops The Globe 100

The Boston Globe publishes an annual list which ranks the best performing public companies in Massachusetts. The winner this year probably surprised them but certainly not those of us in the gun culture. It was the 161-year old firearms manufacturer Smith & Wesson which is located in Springfield.

In an article that is mostly unbiased for the left-leaning Globe, they explain why S&W topped the list.

With its sights trained on firearms once more, Smith & Wesson increased profits 14 times over in 2012, netting $66 million on sales of $538.6 million and rocketing to the first position on this year’s Globe 100 list.

‘We went back to what we do best, which is handguns. We divested the security business very successfully and since that point have not looked back.’ - James Debney, CEO, Smith & Wesson

But the company’s renaissance is not merely a case of addition by subtraction. In recent years, Smith & Wesson has ventured beyond its core revolver business, introducing popular polymer handguns and modern sporting rifles.

The latter — often referred to as assault rifles — represent Smith & Wesson’s fastest-growing product line. Sales increased by 85 percent last year, and a line that did not exist in 2010 delivered more than a fifth of the company’s total revenue.

“It’s become an important piece of our business,” Debney said, acknowledging some concern about legislative efforts to ban the controversial weapons. “But at the end of the day, we come back to our core competency, and where we’re strategically focused, in terms of product, is the [military and police] pistol.”

At the moment, civilian sales of polymer handguns outnumber law enforcement sales, 20 to 1. Smith & Wesson only launched a polymer handgun line in 2006, but the company now views it as the main driver of future growth.

Currently, Smith & Wesson is the third ranked firearms manufacturer by number of firearms produced in the US behind Ruger and Remington. Their current order backlog is approximately $668 million which is greater than the previous year's sales.

Smith & Wesson was given a $ 6 million tax incentive to expand their plant back in 2010. That tax incentive required them to hire an additional 225 over the next seven years. They have already met this requirement as they have hired 350 new workers in the past two years to meet the demand for new firearms. Their payroll is now $80 million annually and their total workforce in Massachusetts now numbers 1,500.

There are a number of comments on S&W topping the Globe 100. Most are as one might expect from what JayG calls the Volksrepublik. They include stuff like "Glorifying a company that manufactures guns?" and "Surely there must be a more worthy #1 pick than an assault weapons manufacturer." It is actually rather amusing to watch the wailing and gnashing of teeth over this. I know for certain that the 350 people who have gotten good paying steady work are not among them.

Second Amendment Rally In Boston On Wednesday

GOAL - the Gun Owner's Action League - is the NRA state affiliate in Massachusetts. They will be holding a rally in support of the Second Amendment on Boston Commons this coming Wednesday. Included in the list of speakers is Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation and Richard Pearson of the Illinois State Rifle Association.

Support - Defend - Speak Out - Take a Stand!

This is your opportunity to make your voice heard to your state lawmakers! It is critical that you attend this important rally to show your support for our Second Amendment rights. If able, please schedule meetings with your state legislators in advance, and spend the day networking with other Second Amendment supporters.

Guest Speakers:

• Jim Wallace Executive Director of GOAL
• Steve Moysey V.P. of GOAL
• Jay Beard President of GOAL
• Second Amendment Foundation's Alan Gottlieb
• Illinois State Rifle Association's Rich Pearson
• Youtube sensation Yang Li and more!

Information:

• Reminder: City of Boston Parks & Rec Commission has regualtion prohibiting CCW on the Boston Common which carries a fine of up to $50.00. Also, CCW is not allowed in the State House.
• Date: Wednesday April 3, 2013
• Time: 12:00 pm - 3:00 pm
• Location: Start at Parkman Bandstand on the Boston Common (see google map below) event will proceed to the Massachusetts State House.
• Transportation: MBTA Park Street Station on the Green Line.
• Driving: Directions, click on "directions" on the google map below.
• Additional Information: Please email Angela Fisher
• GOAL urges all affiliated clubs to organize a charter bus service to transport your membership to this rally!
• Printable Flyer: Click here to open an 8.5x11 .pdf of the flyer, print it out and hang it at your club, town hall, etc...

DAY OF - PREPARATION

• TALKING POINTS - Download and print this pdf featuring information which covers 6 separate bills and their affect on MA gun owners.
• Who is your legislator? Find out by clicking here and entering your zip code. Don't forget to contact them before the event, make sure that they will be able to meet with you on the day of the rally at approximately 2:00 pm. Contact/Invite your state representative and state senator.

Comm2A Goes To Federal Court Against Four Police Chiefs

Commonwealth Second Amendment, the Massachusetts gun rights organization, has filed suit in US District Court for the District of Massachusetts against four Massachusetts police chiefs. They allege that the chiefs have violated the Second Amendment rights by imposing unreasonable and unlawful licensing restrictions on the plaintiffs.

Comm2A filed suit in federal court against four police chiefs in Massachusetts alleging that they violated citizens Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

With support from the National Rifle Association, Commonwealth Second Amendment (Comm2A) and six individual plaintiffs filed suit challenging the constitutionality of restrictions placed on the Licenses to Carry issued by police chiefs in the towns of Weymouth, Danvers, Peabody, and Worcester. The suit alleges that the plaintiffs were denied their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms because the defendants imposed unreasonable and unlawful licensing restrictions on the plaintiffs.

"The fact that there are 351 unregulated and arbitrary practices of issuing licenses in Massachusetts is ridiculous," said Brent Carlton President of Comm2A. "No one would stand for it if it was arbitrarily determined who has the ability to access other rights granted by the Constitution such as free speech."

In all six cases Chiefs determined that individuals who were otherwise lawfully suitable would be restricted from having a firearm for self defense. Plaintiffs in the lawsuit seek a declaratory ruling that the Massachusetts licensing statute and practices of the defendants that prohibit qualified citizens are unconstitutional because they prohibit qualified citizens such as the plaintiffs from carrying a loaded operable handgun for the purpose of self-defense. The suit also seeks to direct defendants to issue plaintiffs licenses to carry without restrictions that would otherwise prohibit the carrying of firearms for personal protection.

Commonwealth Second Amendment (Comm2A) is a grassroots civil rights organization dedicated to promoting a better understanding of rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The case is Davis v. Grimes and the complaint can be found here. The attorneys for the plaintiffs are Patrick M. Groulx of Melrose, Massachusetts and well-known Second Amendment attorney David Jensen of New York.

A Survivor Of Tianamen Square On Gun Rights

"June 4th" was a young Chinese student and democracy activist who was part of the Tiananmen Square protest. That protest was crushed by the People's Liberation Army under the direction of the Chinese Communist Party. On Saturday, "June 4th", who is now a naturalized US citizen and a firearms owner, participated in the rally for gun rights on Saturday at the Massachusetts State Capitol.

"June 4th" refers to the day that the People's Liberation Army fired upon the students and activists in Tiananmen Square killing many hundreds of them.



The full transcript of the speech can be found here at Blog O'Stuff.

The transcripts of the other speeches can be found on the Northeast Shooter's Forum here.

The part of "June 4th"'s speech that really stuck with me was this:

Do you know that the Chinese Constitution guarantees almost all the nice things we have here? It is written that Chinese citizens enjoy freedom of speech and religion, they have human and property rights, and that such rights cannot be taken away without due process of the law. And do you know what? Chinese people do not have the right to keep and bear arms. I assure you all those nice guarantees, are not worth the paper they are printed on, because when the government has all the guns, they have all the rights. <

I was not born a citizen of the United States, I was naturalized in 2007. In 2008, I became a proud gun owner. To me, a rifle is not for sporting or hunting, it is an instrument of freedom. It guarantees that I cannot be coerced, that I have free will, and that I am a free man.

Now suppose the 20 million Beijing citizens had had a few million rifles, how many rounds should they have been ALLOWED to load into their magazines? 10? 7? How about 3?

Think about it. 

Four Wins In A Month!

Heads must be spinning at the Brady Campaign's headquarters with news that the Second Amendment Foundation just won its fourth Second Amendment case this month. The latest case is from Massachusetts where U.S. District Court Judge Douglas P. Woodcock found that the commonwealth's ban on handgun possession by permanent resident aliens contravened the Second Amendment.

From the Second Amendment Foundation's announcement of their win in Fletcher v. Haas:

SAF WINS 2A CASE IN MASS, STRIKING DOWN GUN BAN FOR LEGAL ALIENS

For Immediate Release: 3/30/2012

BELLEVUE, WA – A Federal District Court Judge in Massachusetts today granted summary judgment in a Second Amendment Foundation case challenging that state’s denial of firearms licenses to permanent resident aliens.

U.S. District Court Judge Douglas P. Woodcock concluded that “…the Massachusetts firearms regulatory regime as applied to the individual plaintiffs, contravenes the Second Amendment.”

The case involves two Massachusetts residents, Christopher Fletcher and Eoin Pryal, whose applications for licenses to possess firearms in their homes for immediate self-defense purposes were denied under a state law that does not allow non-citizens to own handguns. SAF was joined in the case by Commonwealth Second Amendment, Inc. and the two individual plaintiffs. The case is Fletcher v. Haas.

“This is our fourth court victory this month in our campaign to win back firearms freedoms one lawsuit at a time,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “It is one more step toward repairing decades of Second Amendment erosion.”

In his 41-page ruling, Judge Woodcock wrote, “The Massachusetts firearms regulatory regime, as applied to Fletcher and Pryal, does not pass constitutional muster regardless of whether intermediate scrutiny or strict scrutiny applies…The possibility that some resident aliens are unsuited to possess a handgun does not justify a wholesale ban.”

“With each strategic victory over a specific statute,” Gottlieb said, “SAF and its fellow plaintiffs are advancing the line a little more. Since our landmark victory in the McDonald case that incorporated the Second Amendment to the states, we’ve been carefully picking laws to challenge, chipping away at years of gun control extremism. So far this month, we have posted victories in Maryland, North Carolina, Washington and now, Massachusetts.

“Our battle is hardly finished,” Gottlieb concluded. “We’ve got to roll back generations of onerous gun laws. It’s going to be a long march, and these wins are just the first small steps.”

Commonwealth Second Amendment Sues Massachusetts In Federal Court

Commonwealth Second Amendment or Comm2A has filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts challenging the state's use of bonded warehouses for holding confiscated firearms.

Comm2A Sues over Property Forfeiture

For Immediate Release: 3/28/2012

NATICK, MA – Commonwealth Second Amendment, Inc. (Comm2A) has filed suit in federal court in Massachusetts challenging the state’s misuse of bonded warehouses to force the forfeiture of privately owned firearms in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process guarantees.

Comm2A’s lawsuit on behalf of Russell Jarvis, James Jarvis and Robert Crampton is supported in part by a grant from the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys David Jensen of New York and Patrick M. Groulx of Somerville, Massachusetts. Defendants are Village Vault, Inc. and Mary E. Heffernan, Secretary of the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security. Complaint

Massachusetts law allows police departments to turn confiscated firearms over to unregulated bonded warehouses who then charge the firearm owners onerous and prohibitive fees for the storage and ‘administration’ of those firearms. Bonded warehouses are authorized to sell these firearms once accumulated fees are in arrears for 90 days.

Massachusetts has failed to regulate bonded warehouses allowing them to levy fees that quickly exceed the value of the confiscated property and virtually assure that confiscated property is forfeit to the bonded warehouse. In many cases gun owners are not properly notified that their property has been transferred to a bonded warehouse until fees have accumulated to a point where they exceed the value of the seized property making their recovery economically irrational.

Valuable firearms belonging to each of the individual plaintiffs were involuntarily transferred to the bonded warehouse operated by defendant Village Vault. Those firearms were subsequently sold at auction by the defendant. In no instance did the plaintiffs have any meaningful opportunity to challenge the forfeiture of their property in a court or other neutral venue. None of individual plaintiffs have ever been convicted of or charged with any crime or are otherwise disqualified from possessing firearms under state or federal law.

*****

Commonwealth Second Amendment (Comm2A) (www.comm2a.org) is a Massachusetts based non-profit dedicated to preserving and expanding the rights of gun owners in the northeast. Our activities include educational programs designed to promote a better understanding of Massachusetts and Federal firearms laws and rights as well as legal action programs to defend and protect the civil rights of Massachusetts gun owners.

Dog Bites Man Or Is This Really News

In news from Greater Boston, comes a press release that the mayor of the City of Peabody has joined Mayor Bloomberg's Illegal Mayors.

Peabody Mayor Edward A. Bettencourt Jr. announced yesterday that he has joined Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a bipartisan coalition of 600 mayors committed to keeping guns out of criminal hands.

Having a mayor from relatively anti-gun Massachusetts (or as JayG calls it, the Volksrepublik) join an anti-gun group of mayors is not news. It is just the same old tired gun prohibitionists rehashing the same old tired news.

However, if Mayor Bettencourt had resigned from MAIG and said he was pushing for real shall-issue concealed carry for Massachusetts, now THAT would be news.

SAF Sues Massachusetts On Gun Rights For Legal Resident Aliens

The Second Amendment Foundation along with Commonwealth Second Amendment is suing the Commonwealth of Massachusetts because of their refusal to grant legal resident aliens the ability to obtain a Firearms ID Card or a License to Carry.

As was the case in two earlier suits involving legal resident aliens, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is on shakey legal ground denying them permits. Laws that discriminate based on "alienage" are subject to strict scrutiny. I am a bit surprised that the ACLU of Massachusetts didn't see fit to bring this case as they did in Kentucky and South Dakota. Here is a link to the Kentucky case for some background on how courts have dealt with denial of gun rights to legal resident aliens.

SAF SUES OVER MASSACHUSETTS GUN BAN FOR LEGAL ALIEN RESIDENTS


BELLEVUE, WA - The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a federal lawsuit challenging a law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that denies legal resident aliens the licenses required to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense, or purchase any kind of firearm.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Joining SAF in this lawsuit are Commonwealth Second Amendment, a Massachusetts grassroots organization, and two British citizens who reside in the commonwealth. They are represented by attorney Joseph M. Hickson III of Springfield. Defendants are Cambridge Police Commissioner Robert C. Haas, Northboro Police Chief Mark k. Leahy and Jason A. Guida, director of the Firearms Records Bureau in Chelsea.

The lawsuit alleges that Christopher M. Fletcher of Cambridge and Eoin M. Pryal of Northboro - both legal resident aliens - have been specifically denied the ability to obtain a Firearms Identification Card or a License to Carry of any kind. Before moving to Massachusetts, Fletcher lived in California, where he had a Basic Firearms Safety certificate and Handgun Safety certificate, which allowed him to purchase and own firearms including handguns. Pryal, who is married to a citizen of this country, and had a shotgun certificate and international dealer's license while living in the United Kingdom.

"One of the fundamental principles in this country is that people have rights," said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. "Among those rights is the right of self-defense, especially in one's own home. Christopher Fletcher and Eoin Pryal live here legally, they have been firearms owners, they are productive members of the community, yet they are being denied a basic right by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This is wrong and our court challenge aims to correct that."

"This lawsuit truly illustrates the contradictory and irrational nature of the Commonwealths' firearms laws," Comm2A President Brent Carlton added. "Governor Deval Patrick's administration has broadly supported the immigrant community and noted our dependence on them for our continued prosperity while Massachusetts law treats those same individuals as inherently dangerous enough to justify their exclusion from certain fundamental rights protected by the Constitution of the United States. This blanket prohibition runs contrary to the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and today's challenge is supported overwhelmingly by well-established legal precedent."

The Second Amendment Foundation has posted a copy of the complaint in Fletcher et al v. Haas et al here.

More On Microstamping In Massachusetts

Jim Wallace of the Gun Owners Action League is interviewed on Cam & Company regarding the microstamping bill.

Microstamping Bill Introduced In Massachusetts

Rep. David Paul Linsky (D-Middlesex) has introduced House Bill 1561 in the Massachusetts State House. The bill would mandate all semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols sold or manufactured in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts be capable of imprinting a "microstamp" on the face of a cartridge effective January 1, 2012.

The text of the bill reads:

SECTION 1. Chapter 269 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2004 Official Edition, is hereby amended by deleting Section 11E and inserting the following new section:-

Chapter 269: Section 11E. Serial identification numbers on firearms.

Section 11E.

(A) All firearms, rifles and shotguns of new manufacture, manufactured or delivered to any licensed dealer within the commonwealth shall bear serial numbers permanently inscribed on a visible metal area of said firearm, rifle or shotgun, and the manufacturer of said firearm, rifle or shotgun shall keep records of said serial numbers and the dealer, distributor or person to whom the firearm, rifle or shotgun was sold or delivered.

No licensed dealer shall order for delivery, cause to be delivered, offer for sale or sell within the commonwealth any newly manufactured firearm, rifle or shotgun received directly from a manufacturer, wholesaler or distributor not so inscribed with a serial number nor shall any licensed manufacturer or distributor of firearms, rifles or shotguns deliver or cause to be delivered within the commonwealth any firearm, rifle or shotgun not complying with this section.

No licensed manufacturer within the commonwealth shall produce for sale within the United States, its territories or possessions any firearm, rifle or shotgun not complying with paragraph one of this section. Whoever violates this section shall be punished by a fine of five hundred dollars. Each such violation shall constitute a separate offense.

(B) All semiautomatic firearms as defined in Chapter 140 Section 21 manufactured or delivered to any licensed dealer within the commonwealth shall be capable of microstamping ammunition.

(C) For purposes of subparagraph (B), a firearm is capable of microstamping ammunition if –
(i) a microscopic array of characters that identify the make, model, and serial number of the of the firearm is etched into the breech face and firing pin of the firearm; and
(ii) when ammunition is fired from the firearm, the characters are copied from the breech face and firing pin onto the cartridge case of the ammunition.

(D) Subparagraph (B) shall apply only to semiautomatic firearms which –
(i) are manufactured, or imported into the Commonwealth on or after the effective date of this subsection; and
(ii) have not been transferred to a person not licensed under Chapter 140 of the general laws.

(D) Whoever violates paragraph (B) shall be fined an amount equal to –
(i) in the case of a first such violation by the violator, $1,000 multiplied by the number of firearms involved in the violation;
(ii) in the case of a second violation by the violator, $2,000 multiplied by the number of firearms involved in the violation;
(iii) in the case of a third such violation by the violator, $3,000 multiplied by the number of firearms involved in the violation.

(E) The effective date of this act shall be January 1, 2012.

The NRA-ILA had this to say, in part, about the bill:

If passed, the availability of semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and handguns in Massachusetts could be in jeopardy, as manufacturers simply may choose not to build or sell firearms for purchase in the state. In fact, this bill would likely create a de facto ban on new semi-automatic firearms.

Unless I am misunderstanding the language of this bill, both Smith & Wesson and Savage would be impacted by this bill as they both have manufacturing operations in the state and both make semi-automatic firearms.

Smith & Wesson would feel the heavier impact as they manufacture more semi-autos. Given that they were given a grant by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to expand operations in Springfield while at the same time closing their Thompson-Center plant in New Hampshire just a couple of months ago, one must wonder if they are having second thoughts.

As it is, microstamping is an unproven, untested, and unreliable technology that can be defeated with a common nail file. If the true intent of Rep. Linsky and his fellow compatriots was to drive the gun makers out of the Commonwealth and kill job creation in Massachusetts, then they just might succeed if this bill passes.

And In Massachusetts News...

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts approved $6 million in tax incentives to help Smith and Wesson expand their manufacturing plant in Springfield. According to the Boston Globe, this was the second-largest tax incentive award by the commonwealth in 2010.

The $6 million in tax breaks, which will be spread out over seven years, work out to nearly $27,000 per job and form the second-largest incentive package the state has awarded this year. The state recently reconfigured its tax incentive program to steer more money to manufacturers and other companies with significant out-of-state sales, and to give preference to businesses expanding in poorer cities such as Springfield.

Smith and Wesson is expanding their Springfield plant as they shift production from their Thompson/Center plant in New Hampshire. They plan to add 225 new jobs at the Springfield plant. Greg Bialecki, Massachusetts Secretary of Housing and Economic Development called it a very big expansion for western Massachusetts.

Smith & Wesson receives $6M to expand: wwlp.com

The company announced the award on December 21st in a press release on their investor website. They noted the company had been approached by other cities and states to expand outside of Massachusetts.

The award resulted after several months of discussion between the Commonwealth and Smith & Wesson, while the company considered location options for its rifle manufacturing. James Debney, President of Smith & Wesson Firearms, said, "Although several states and cities have approached us to entice expansion into their locations, Massachusetts and the Patrick-Murray Administration, Secretary Bialecki and his office, and Springfield Mayor Sarno and his staff, collaborated on the project to make our choice clear. These administrations are highly collaborative and worked closely with us on incentive programs to structure an agreement that demonstrates the commitment of both the Commonwealth and the City to not only Smith & Wesson, but to our employees, the local community, and to manufacturing in Massachusetts."

Given that Governor Deval Patrick is very anti-gun, it goes to show that jobs trump liberal policies in a recession. I'm surprised we haven't heard from the Brady Campaign moaning about this being a waste of taxpayer monies.