Mayor Setti Warren is active in trying to close a loophole in the state’s 1998 ban on the sale of assault weapons. He recently led a group of 19 Massachusetts mayors supporting Attorney General Maura Healey’s efforts to more fully enforce that law. Gun manufacturers and dealers have been getting around the ban by making small modifications that make the weapons legal but not less lethal. As Healy announced on July 21, she intends to prevent that practice through stricter enforcement of the existing law — for weapons sold on or after July 21.
So how many — if any — assault weapons are there in Newton? It’s not clear, since we have information only about licenses and permits in general. Last March, the TAB ran an article about police chiefs’ discretion over granting permits to carry guns in their cities and towns. Citing the Massachusetts Department of Criminal Justice Information Services, the article said that in Newton, there are 1,451 active Licenses to Carry “large-capacity” firearms, which Massachusetts defines as “a semi-automatic handgun or rifle that is capable of accepting more than ten rounds, OR is a semi-automatic shotgun capable of accepting more than five shotgun shells, OR is an assault weapon.” Per capita, Newton’s number of Licenses to Carry is about one-third the statewide average. (The TAB noted that among the 1,451 licenses in Newton are “nine permits allowing residents to possess a machine gun,” which by law are available only to firearms instructors of police personnel or to bona fide firearms collectors.)
It’s not clear how many weapons — and of what type — are associated with these 1,451 licenses and permits. The state tracks licenses and gun sales, but not gun ownership. There’s no registry for guns, as there is for motor vehicles. A police department can search online for people who at some point bought certain types of guns legally, but these transaction lists do not indicate current ownership — and they do not include guns brought in by people moving into the state or acquiring guns illegally. In denying a public-records request for the number and breakdown of guns registered to current residents of Lexington, the state said that current registration information is just not available.
So as we say on Village 14, “How are the streets in your neighborhood?”
I agree with the Mayor’s position on assault weapons. But the timing of his advocacy and the subject matter strike me as being politically calculated. Nevertheless, I won’t second guess his motives.
But I do wish this Mayor had Bernie Sander’s courage to speak out for cannabis reform. It’s bad enough that hundreds of Newton patients have been denied access to their medication because this city bungled implementation of the medical marijuana law. The Mayor and City Council should be ashamed of the fact that 4 years after voters approved medical marijuana dispensaries, Newton patients must travel outside city limits to obtain medication prescribed by their doctor. Some of these people have difficulty traveling because of debilitating illnesses like cancer and MS. Has the Mayor or any of our local elected officials advocated for them in any way? Their silence is deafening.
Similarly, where is the Mayor’s voice on legalizing marijuana for recreational use? This issue is on the ballot in November. I want people to imagine what would happen if alcohol prohibition were reimplemented today. Tens of thousands would lose their jobs. Thousands of businesses would close. The State’s economy would lose million$ every day. That very same thing is actually taking place today with marijuana prohibition. Antiquated laws not only depress the economy, they oppress freedom as well. It’s very discouraging that the Mayor hasn’t weighed in on this issue. Discouraging, but not surprising, as Mayor Warren has proven to be quite competent, but he lacks courage and leadership skills.
I support the sentiment completely.
The thing is that stricter enforcement of the current law may help prevent the manufacture and sale of “copy-cat” weapons but as long as the law includes at the end of the definition of large capacity firearms “or an assault rifle,” the law will continue to be difficult to defend.
@Mike – if you’re going to bring in Bernie’s stances on unrelated issues, how about acknowledging his disappointing votes on gun control (the subject of this post)?
I don’t think there’s anyone posting to this blog who thinks Seti’s perfect by any means. I certainly don’t, but I completely agree with him on this issue.
@mgwa– You make a very fair point. I personally feel that there are good solutions available to the gun problem in this country, all of which I’d be happy to enumerate or debate.
To be perfectly frank though, I was just taking the opportunity to remind V14 readers how badly the Mayor and City Council screwed over a lot of very sick people in Newton. While I have a lot of respect in general for our Mayor and City Councilors, I think it’s important that they acknowledge their mistakes and apologize to those patients who were effected.
The Massachusetts ban is a 100% copy of the Federal ban that was in existence from 1994-2004. During this 10 year period, the ATF did not enforce the law in the manner that Healey did. And since this law was enacted in Massachusetts in 1998, neither has any prior state Attorney General.
In the mean time, since 1994 many law abiding Massachusetts residents purchased these rifles (“copycats” — what a pejorative word to use), and they were considered 100% legal up until 7/20/16, when Healey overturned 22 years of precedent in how the law was applied and made the possession of these previously legal firearms a retroactive felony punishable by up to ten years in prison. There is no grandfathering, just Healey’s promise that she won’t pursue any charges (though the announcement stated that this was subject to change at any time).
There are nearly 400,000 current firearms permits active in Massachusetts, people who have each been deemed a “suitable person” by their police chief. And now many of them are now unindicted criminals thanks to the AG’s action, subject to be prosecuted at any time if an enterprising DA decides to do so.
This should have been done through the legislative process after public input. Instead, Healey decides to do this right at the end of the legislative session, and a week before she is to speak at the DNC. This is pure political grandstanding and a disgusting abuse of power. It also sets a dangerous precedent — one can fall asleep and wake up a felon.
There were zero murders committed with a rifle in Massachusetts last year. Handguns and gang/drug violence are the real culprits when it comes to violent crimes committed with firearms. Why not review the state’s leniency to repeat offenders (like the man who fatally shot the officer in Auburn earlier this year)? That would have much more of an impact on crime than this political stunt ever will.
Jeff – The ban is on assault weapons sold on or after July 21st.
Jane — That is incorrect. From the AG’s own website:
“Q: What if I already own a gun that is a copy or duplicate?
If a weapon is a copy or duplicate of one of the models enumerated in the law, it is an Assault weapon. The Enforcement notice will not be applied to possession, ownership or transfer by an individual gun owner of weapons obtained on or before July 20, 2016.”
http://www.mass.gov/ago/public-safety/awbe.html
The ban itself has been in place since 1998 and has not changed at all. The written law remains unchanged — possession of an assault weapon is still punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
What has changed is what is considered an assault weapon — as of 7/20/16, thousands of guns that were legally sold between 1994 and 7/19/16 are now illegal to possess in Massachusetts. Yet the AG apparently has decided not to charge anyone at this time. There should be no selective enforcement of laws that are punishable by up to 10 years — this should have been done through the legislature.
This is some progress, but if the Atty General wants to get the guns out of the hands of those with criminal intent then both her office, and the courts must prosecute gun offenses to the full extent of the laws on the books.
Stating the obvous that gun offenders are breaking the law, and usually intend to break more laws with the guns, you must also realize they have little to no weapons training, nor any regard for safety training.
I’m going to be really honest. I don’t have a lot of sympathy for people who own assault weapons, whether it’s an “actual” assault weapon or a “copy” of one. They’re weapons of war that should have been banned long ago. We’re never going to agree so let’s just leave it at that.
Jane, what should concern you is the arbitrary, unilateral way the AG decided to change the law outside the legislative process. Someday there may be a rogue AG or other political leader that will decide to change a law you are sympathetic to but precedent has been set.
Getting back to the original question, how many “assault weapons” are in Newton? I think it’s fair to say, a lot of regulars on this board would be shocked to know. I know the number of permits issued over the past few years has gone up significantly so one could assume the number of legal firearms sold to Newton residents has gone up proportionally, including long guns, some you would consider “assault rifles” and many others just as powerful but not as scary looking so wouldn’t fit the usual misinformed definition.
Feel free to correct me if you think I am wrong.
Laws are passed by the legislature, true.
This is (part of) the law in the current ban that has not changed – a definition of what types of guns are “assault weapons.”
“large-capacity” firearms, which Massachusetts defines as “a semi-automatic handgun or rifle that is capable of accepting more than ten rounds, OR is a semi-automatic shotgun capable of accepting more than five shotgun shells, OR is an assault weapon.”
The part of the law that uses the term “or is an assault weapon” broadens the scope to include all guns that fall into the definition of that term – basically the types listed above it. The problem with enforcement stem partly from the law’s listing of specific guns by specific manufacturers (i.e. Colt’s AR-15 Carbine) that fall into that category and using those as a benchmark for prosecution, instead of any gun that fits the definition above it – which it should.
The AG did not usurp power from the legislature, as Leopold says she did here, “the arbitrary, unilateral way the AG decided to change the law outside the legislative process,” because the law has not changed – only its enforcement, which falls within her purview.
Marti — Based on the interpretation/enforcement since 1994 of both the federal ban (by the ATF) and the state ban (by everyone except Healey), it is obvious what the legislative intent of the law was. Healey has decided to ignore over 20 years of precedent set by both congress and the state legislature and leave thousands and thousands of those who made every attempt to follow the law into unindicted felons overnight.
Jane — Beware of selective enforcement, as your issue will come eventually. Like locally produced wine? Healey also has that covered with her defense of a retroactive liquor license change (after 16 years) that has left a local winery in the lurch.
http://www.wbur.org/morningedition/2016/06/17/nashoba-valley-winery
Apart from my undying opposition any “cosmetic” ban passed and supported by fools who have no respect for the 2nd amendment, people’s inherent right to self-defense, or desire to have any understanding of the legislation and impact of the legislation they are supporting, everyone with an IQ above room temperature should have a problem with the AGs actions.
What the AG has done is unprecedented, and has been opposed by bipartisan groups within the Massachusetts House and Senate. Maybe those of you who support her actions would also see no issue with her “understanding” murder statutes to include abortion… That would be insane and ridiculous, just as her actions here are.
As far as you having no sympathy for the 100s of thousands of Massachusetts residents who own “weapons of war,” which they are not, possibly being convicted of felonies, well that’s just sad. The fear over “assault weapons” is the best example of white suburban people caring more about white suburban people than anyone else. All you have to do is ask any cop in a bad neighborhood in Massachusetts what their familiarity is with those who ultimately get arrested for homicide in these communities, and you can see where this state needs reformation in the criminal justice system.
Finally, you all live in Newton. You shouldn’t have to walk too far to find a lawyer to explain to you what this action does and means. Her new grandfather date of July 21st means nothing. This guidance has potentially devastating consequences for someone who a DA decides to have a field day with, even if they are ultimately acquitted (because there is zero way any honest judge would allow this interpretation to stand in a criminal proceeding).
I am happy to be a Massachusetts gun owner who owns multiple AR15s. Of my dozens of gun-owning friends in this state, I don’t know any of them who DON’T own AR15s. I only hope that those of them who purchased them in compliance with MA law don’t face criminal penalties. I feel for the gun shops which are reeling from a large portion of their sales being cut, and the boutique shops which will be forced to close.
Mike
@Mike. I guess the question I have is can the AR-15, in the wrong hands, cause basically the same amount of death and mayhem as the assault weapons that were previously regulated before the AG’s decision. You make a strong pitch for the police in urban areas which is fine, but it’s puzzling since it is done in the context of your opposition to controls over weapons that have the capacity to kill or wound a score or more of people in a minute or two of concentrated fire. From what I understand, most national and state police organizations want to get these weapons off the streets simply because police forces are being horribly outgunned in today’s America. The presence of so many high capacity weapons invariably results in the militarization of civilian police forces throughout the nation. This, in turn, produces another level of anxiety when whole communities feel the police are acting as an occupying force which, in turn, is another source of conflict, isolation and violence. A vicious cycle, to say the least and part of the reason there is currently so much racial unrest.
I’m certain you would not use any of your AR-15’s to harm any person, but there are people out there that would do so without a single pang of conscience and they include people with a wide variety of mental and emotional problems and assorted political or social gripes. I’d feel better if I knew those types of folks weren’t perusing our fair City with this type of firepower.
Any weapon in the wrong hands can cause mayhem and destruction. I’m not going to sit here and say firearms don’t facilitate that. That said, rifles and AR15s specifically are, at the very most, very marginally more dangerous in the very limited amount of crime which makes up mass-shootings, and I doubt even this is the case. Only once in American history, in all of our mass shootings, has an AR15 been used in a shooting which had a higher death count than one which involved handguns, predominantly with 10 round magazines at that (Virginia tech). There is little to suggest any AR15, whether it is the one that was intended to be banned, or their compliant counterparts, are much more dangerous than pistols in the wrong hands.
You cite the desires of law enforcement… yet the majority of patrol officers, not the POLITICALLY APPOINTED police chiefs, don’t support such bans. PoliceOne surveyed 14,000 officers on firearms issues, and I encourage you to google the survey result. I have many friends in law enforcement, local, state, and federal, and this mirrors their beliefs. It’s also very telling that MCOPA, which lobbies for restrictions on various types of firearms, also has successfully lobbied to have law enforcement officers, active and retired, for work and personal use, to be exempt from all these gun laws. Indeed the AG cites to this saying their “right” to own these firearms is not effected by her illegal decree.
I am concerned about gun violence in all communities. Fixing and strengthening our background check system in a manner which is respectful of due process and the rights of the law abiding to adequately defend themselves is one way to do this. I am generally against minimum mandatory sentencing, but applying some sort of strict standard to those who use firearms in commission of violent crimes would also probably do a lot. Those who murder others in our inner cities are rarely unknown to police. Telling someone who has passed through the proper channels they can’t own a firearm based off how it looks or purposely perpetuated misconceptions is ridiculous, arrogant, and irresponsible. These misconceptions being: AR15s are used in war (Thanks Seth Moulton for disgracing our uniform, using it to perpetuate lies), AR15s (or even M16s, the fully-automatic military rifle) are designed to kill as many people in as little time as possible, etc. This is all BS. An AR15 is a modern looking rifle made with modern materials that much like some of the most popular hunting rifles, fires one bullet per pull of the trigger. Period. It is actually approaching 60+ years of civilian ownership.
No matter what you believe, as someone who is respectful of legislative process and democracy, the manner in which the AG is attempting to curtail the rights of Massachusetts residents should make you upset. It made many Democrats and Republicans in the Massachusetts house and senate very upset, and prompted letters from committees such as the house judiciary committee. That should raise red flags. Lauding her efforts at subverting legislative process is scary.
Because we are newly formatted here on the “V,” I want to point out that Mike Striar and Mike [not Striar] are two different people. Both “Mikes” respect the Constitution and Second Amendment, while having differing opinions on “assault weapons.” This Mike certainly respects the other Mike’s opinion, because he knows a lot more about the subject matter than I do. In my opinion though, law abiding citizens clearly have the right to carry a gun, but guns should be more closely regulated as consumer products.
Just my 2 cents, but how many guns are in Newton isn’t the only relevant statistic. I would wonder how many shooting victims were actually shot by a gun that was registered in their city or town. I would guess that there’s a lot of variability there. I think the more relevant information is the ease of access in Massachusetts generally of weapons that can do a lot of harm in a very short period of time.
I applaud the Mayor for taking a stand on this important issue. While we probably can’t stop people from committing horrible acts completely, we can certainly make it more difficult for them to get their hands on weapons that can harm a lot of people very quickly.
Fingers in ears effect going on here. Mr. Barash applauds the mayor for standing behind an overreach by the AG into the role of the legislature, that exposes 100s of thousands of fellow MA citizens to potential felony charges, and will force small businesses to close (and indeed has). He supports this illegal overreach that is not only not backed by statistics, but runs contrary to them.
If the gun-control side genuinely cared about making it difficult for the wrong people to get guns, they wouldn’t have such an infatuation with an outright ban and criminal penalties for people who jump through all the hoops to get so-called “assault weapons.” Making something difficult to get for the wrong people, and making it a felony for upstanding law abiding citizens to possess, build, transfer, etc, are two very different things, and is not respectful of the inherent right to self defense, the 2nd Amendment, common sense, and in this case, constituent input when making laws.
Regulating guns more closely as consumer products also differs from an outright ban or prohibition on one of the most popular types of firearms in the United States.
And Mike, I would respectfully argue that you do not respect the 2nd Amendment as many Americans understand it to exist. I, and most others who are involved in 2A issues, would say that a respect for the 2nd Amendment does not mean blanket prohibitions based off arbitrarily drawn lines and factors. We would also argue that it doesn’t mean restrictions in the name of “saving just one life,” which for the record, I don’t believe evidence supports is likely the case in this scenario.
Mike
All of our constitutional rights are subject to interpretation. Personally, I try and interpret all our rights in the most liberal, user-friendly way possible, erring on the side of the citizen rather than the government. While I strongly support the rights [although not always the wisdom] of citizens who want to carry a gun or have a gun in their home for “protection,” I do think that some restrictions are [and should be] constitutionally permissible.
I realize though that all of our rights are inextricably linked, and an erosion of any constitutional right is a threat to all constitutional rights. So I’m naturally appalled at what’s happened to the Fourth Amendment in post 9-11 America, and just plain pissed off about the Obama Administration’s obliteration of the First Amendment. I know those are not the topic of this particular blog post, nor is cannabis reform which I wrote about earlier. Just venting.
I’m with you on the 1st and 4th. I’m in law school in MA right now and we have a con-law professor who believes 1A should be more restrictive and what he deems “hate speech” should not be protected. A lot of the students are thrilled about this. 4A was just dealt another huge blow by SCOTUS this summer… although I understand the role SCOTUS plays in the excercise of our rights, in reality they aren’t the politically insulated all-knowing group they should be. Im with you on cannabis as well (though not a user myself).
I recognize 2A isn’t limitless, but I think arbitrary restrictions, or restrictions designed to save “just one life,” are an infringement that should not be tolerated. Its not a second class right, but it is treated as such. Make no mistake, the end game of a large faction of this country is total disarmament. The same group tries to discredit us by calling us paranoid or dilusional. I’ve been playing this game a while… we certainly aren’t. Healy subverting legislative process should piss everyone off. The same group if people, mind you, love to call the NRA an evil corporate lobby, when they are perhaps the most democratic lobbying organization out there that receives most of their money from small donations from their 5 Million+ members. Are they perfect? No. But we need them because we are under constant assault, now more than ever. Then things like tying the no-fly list to gun purchases, a process that would essentially strip the 2nd Amendment of due process protections, is touted as common sense. When the NRA suggests a “compromise” of a 3 day maximum delay, the DEMOCRATS in Massachusetts stomp their feet and cry for all or nothing. Its clear how one side of this issue feels about it.
The long delay in opening the City approved site for the distribution of medical marijuana was due to the difficulty of the sponsor in finding a site to grow product, not any failure on the part of the Newton city government. I understand that a site was finally found and planted in the Fitchburg area and that medical marijuna should be available at the long approved site in Newton/
City Councilor Brian Yates
The medical marjuana site approved long ago by the city government should be in operation sometime this fall as soon as the first crop at their growing site in Fitchburg can be harvested.
@Brian– The long delay in the availability of cannabis for medical patients in Newton is the result of two things. The moratorium passed by the [then] Board of Aldermen, and the Board’s failure to properly zone for a dispensary with onsite grow capability. The moratorium hurt, because it came at the exact time when State regulators had made clear municipalities that welcomed dispensaries would be first in line for approval. The zoning regulations hurt because the BoA selected an area where no building was large enough to serve as a grow facility, forcing the eventual license holder to go through the entire approval process [State and local] a second time in a different municipality. You may recall Brian, this is the exact scenario I cautioned you and the other Aldermen/Councilors about in a personal email sent to each one of you.
Gee, it’s almost like someone made some expansive decision that makes it really difficult for licensed MA gun owners to buy AR15s or a whole multitude of firearms based off some sneaky work-around (or general incompetence and ignorance).
But this is different because Marijuana users never hurt anybody? Rifles were used in approximately 300 homicides last year nationwide. OUI killed 10,000 (including about 400 children). Don’t get me wrong, I think it absolutely should be legalized, despite some increased risk, but you see the disconnect here… This is a gun-thread so I’m actually not de-railing it 😉
can someone explain to me what an assault weapon is in Mass now? It used to be that if a firearm had certain features it is an assault weapon but now Healey says without those features it’s still an assault weapon. so are all semi auto rifles assault weapons now in Mass?
for example, the boy scouts like to use the Ruger 10/22 rifle but Ruger sells this same rifle with an adjusting stock, which is banned in Mass. So does that mean the boy scouts can’t buy these anymore just because it uses the same magazine as the other rifle?
boy scout ruger: http://www.ruger.com/products/1022/overview.html
same rifle with pistol grip black stock: http://www.ruger.com/products/sr22Rifle/specSheets/11134.html
A bunch of your tax money will now be spent defending against lawsuits due to the AG’s unconstitutional overreach. First lawsuit is coming down the pipeline.
http://www.nssf.org/share/pdf/092216-Complaint_for_Declaratory_Relief_As_Filed.pdf
I don’t care what your political philosophy is, but I would like to think you would want to see the proper processes followed when it comes to legislation. But I guess many of you are happy to carve out exceptions for the rights you don’t choose to exercise.