In a 23-1 vote, the City Council last night approved severe zoning restrictions on fire arms businesses in Newton. In casting the only opposition vote, Councilor Lenny Gentile said, “I don’t think that this restrictive zoning gives as much protection as we would like our constituents to think.””
In addition to requiring firearms establishments to secure a special permit from the City Council, the new law, once signed by Mayor Fuller (as expected), imposes buffers around schools, playgrounds, libraries and hospitals. In essence, the new zoning eliminates any locations for a firearms business to open.
There is a public hearing on Monday, June 21 to discuss an outright ban on firearms establishments in the city. Fuller and many city councilors have said that a ban would invite a court challenge on constitutional grounds.
This was the wrong decision. It is morally irresponsible and reprehensible to single out a particular class of perfectly and absolutely legal (not to mention highly regulated) enterprise for such treatment. It plays naturally, easily, and perhaps appropriately into every stereotype and trope offered by those on the far right regarding those anywhere to the left of center. It adds to the already long list of ways in which Newton discourages economic activity. But at least it makes everyone feel good which is after all more important than doing good or doing right. At least around these parts.
Selective zoning says we don’t want something in our neighborhood, so we’re going to make it difficult for that business to exist even though it’s got a legal right to do so.
I don’t buy the argument that we need to protect kids and trauma victims from the sight of gun shops. Guns are legal in the US. They’re not going away. Sweeping uncomfortable issues under the rug to avoid feelings doesn’t serve the people you are protecting. I believe people are always better off if they know the truth. What helps kids and trauma victims is putting guns in a proper perspective, knowing that in MA, people can’t simply walk into a gun shop and walk out with a gun.
If you’re going to buy a gun with the intent to use it, wouldn’t you prefer to buy it in an out-of-the-way place rather than in full view? My preference would have been to allow the store to open, regulate their activities, and require that they contribute to our community positively. It’s always better to know your enemies.
The process taken by the City Council to determine where it is safer for a gun shop to exist by drawing circles around ‘protected areas’ is a farce. I find it embarrassing. Sure, we do selective zoning all the time, which is why the city council so quickly adopted it. I’m sure most of them thought voting no would have been political suicide.
If this is indeed the people’s voice, it shows that as a city, we don’t value fairness, lawfulness and that we’re ok with gaming our system as long as no gun shop opens here – That’s makes us the same as the Texas GOP as they restrict access to voting. We’re hypocrites who have decided to zone a gun shop out of existence while keeping our liquor stores even though alcohol out-kills guns 44K vs. 95K deaths per year because it makes us feel better about ourselves.
I share everyone’s frustration with gun violence. If we are indeed at our whits-end and need to make a stand, I’ve come around to thinking that Emily’s total ban is the only honest route. Inherent in a complete ban is that we expect a legal battle and are prepared to fight. I’m skeptical, though. I don’t think Newton is a place that values honesty. I think the easy way out suits most of us just fine. Am I wrong?
“Doing good” and “doing right” are allowing a weapon store to open in a residential neighborhood near schools, shelters, etc? How can anybody think that is good and right?
I am glad the gun store on Washington Street can’t open, and while I understand that Newton can’t ban gun stores, I am pleased with the decision. While I don’t smoke pot, I don’t have an issue with the pot stores (and I live near one of them).
I think the biggest reason why I am happy about the decision, is that the gun store owner (on Washington) wanted me to believe he was going to follow the rules. Except he did construction without a work permit. If you can’t follow the local rules now, HOW am I going to trust you with lethal weapons.
My kids are shocked that I never had an active shooter drill. My son was in fifth grade during Newtown, CT and my daughter in first grade. Active shooter drills for my kids are as common as fire drills were for me. I worry about guns, and I worry more because the proposed Newton gun shop had an owner that was willing NOT to follow local laws. How could I trust that there would NOT be illegal gun sales.
NewtonMom
Your analogy of calling the owner “untrustworthy and unlawful” is similar to calling ANYONE who doesn’t stop at every Stop sign while driving unlawful and reckless.
If someone wants to buy a legal gun and do harm, there isn’t an invisible wall around Newton. They will simply drive 20 mins to the next town and drive back to Newton to commit their crimes.
I wish ppl would put the same effort into eliminating ILLEGAL guns which are rampant in inner cities. Ie mandatory prison sentence with anyone caught with an unlicensed gun.
This solves nothing
I completely agree with Mike that a complete ban is the only honest route out of the conundrum that has been thrust upon this city these last couple of months and am especially thankful for all the hard work that Lisle Baker, Emily Norton, Tarik Lucas, Marc Laredo and others have put into writing considerate ordinances rather than just expeditious ones.
and Lenny Gentile!!
23-1? Stark difference than the straw poll a few weeks ago. Am going to have to view the recorded meeting before forming a formal opinion but on the surface, this is disappointing.
@Matt Lai – The council passed an extremely restrictive zoning ordinance this week and they are taking up a total ban next week. If you’d like to shut down gun stores in Newton, it doesn’t sound like there’s anything to be disappointed about. At least not yet.
Matt –
The zoning ordinance and the ban proposed ordinance are separate items. As Jerry noted, the public hearing for the ban ordinance is June 21st. For those who support a ban, voting yes on the restrictive zoning ordinance was considered to be a backup in case the ban ordinance doesn’t pass at the local level or, in case of a lawsuit, it’s found to be unconstitutional. If that happened and we didn’t have an ordinance in place, the city would be left in the same position it’s been in up to this point, with no restrictions and no special permit required to open a gun store.
Agree that a complete ban is the best and fairest way to go. The gun shops have not gone away so no victory lap! Rumford and North St are still very much in the mix with Rumford being the top contender and The Street which will be eliminated with the zoning ordinance. So the Newton kids who live in the Rumford St area will need to walk past this to go to Burr Elementary School and to walk to the bus stops for middle and high school on Lexington St. Kids from West Newton cut through this neighborhood to get to the Cove Conservation area. So this neighborhood deserves the same consideration and the same protective ordinances as the other areas of Newton. They need to include walking school routes in the ordinance as well as protection for the Children’s Trauma Center and the WCI a day center for developmentally delayed adults which are adjacent to this area in Waltham. I doubt very much the council will take this on an go for a full ban and applaud Lenny Gentile for taking a strong stance on this
@Nancy Mazzipica, based on the explanation provided by Councilor Josh Krintzman in the Auburndale Facebook group, it does not sound like North St and Rumford are viable locations for a gun shop. Here is his explanation:
“I think that the zoning we adopted was a great step forward for the city. It severely restricts locations throughout the city for a gun shop to open AND introduces the city council as the special permit granting authority into ANY proposal for a gun shop. Also, in addition to the normal special permit process, I was able to add an additional condition to the Special Permit process requiring that 2/3 of city council conclude that the proposed gun store would: NOT be detrimental to the public health safety or welfare of the neighborhood in which it is proposed, or the whole city.”
Lauren I wish I could trust the process but getting a 2/3 vote is difficult especially on such a volatile issue .We can only hope that this area doesn’t bear the brunt.
Nancy, it seems that while there was a bit of division around the best way to stop gun stores from opening in Newton, city councilors were 100% united on not wanting these stores to set up shop in the city. I just can’t imagine a scenario where any city councilor would say that a gun store opening anywhere in Newton “would not be detrimental to the public health safety or welfare of the neighborhood…or the whole city.” If it’s as simple as Councilor Krintzman has layed out, then I believe the coucil has effectively zoned gun stores out of Newton. On a philosophical level I’m not convinced that this was the right thing to do–but that’s a wholely different discussion.
Hope you’re right!
Luckily the “in your backyard” councilors will reveal themselves with the total ban vote.
Very surprised if any councilor votes against it. Its the only “fair” choice
I am pleased that the shop at 709 Washington Street cannot open. But I was disappointed that we passed a version of zoning that sets aside several areas of the city where a gun shop can go. I was also disappointed to only get 7 votes in favor of prohibiting under 18 year olds from entering a gun store, particularly when we are wiling to prohibit under 21 yr olds from entering a retail tobacco shop.
Here is what I said before our vote.
***
Thank you to the Law Dept and Planning Dept that have worked so hard on this proposal.
I am happy 709 Washington St will be limited by Alternative 5.
Councilor Lipof said we should “think about the city as a whole” “Let’s not push it elsewhere”, but that’s exactly what we’re doing, we just saw this in the maps that were shown.
Councilor Wright and I visited all of the potential gun shop locations yesterday. One of those locations is Rumford Ave in Auburndale. I’d like to tell you about what exists just over the line in Waltham on Rumford Ave from the area we are proposing for a gun shop.
The first is “Work Community Independence”. Their mission is “to empower and support Individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, autism and acquired brain injury to achieve rich and meaningful lives at home, at work and in their communities.”
So imagine a person who is disabled or has suffered a brain injury, having to drive by a gun shop on their way to receive services.
The second location right next to the possible gun shop zoning is the Children’s Charter Trauma Clinic. We received an email from the Director today, and I’d like to read it out loud.
“My name is Paula Stahl. I am the founder and Director of Children’s Charter Trauma Clinic opening in 1985. We are the largest provider of specialized, psychological trauma services in Massachusetts. We have been located at 77 Rumford Ave, Waltham for the past 36 years. The children and adults we serve present with significant, often acute, histories of Domestic Violence, sexual abuse, and physical and emotional abuse. We see over 325 adults and children weekly-70% who live in the Newton and Waltham communities. I have serious concerns about clients, in desperate need of our services, with histories of violence, feeling safe to access our mental health services with a GUN STORE ONE BLOCK FROM OUR CLINIC. I worry about the children, who have witnessed violence, making sense of gun store near the clinic their parents bring them to “heal”. I also have grave concerns for our clients and a 40 member staff. Some of our clients are stalked by their perpetrators. It is frightening to think their perpetrators would have access to guns so close to our parking lot and our entrance. I ask the Council to consider the unique needs of our clients and our responsibility as a community, to allow these adults and children to heal in a safe and protected environment. In my 40-year career of advocating for abused children and adults, I have never been faced with a decision by the leaders of a community that has a greater potential to compromise the work and the mission of my clinic.”
Paula Stahl, Ed.D
Director Children’s Charter Trauma Clinic
77 Rumford Ave
Waltham, MA 02453
Bottom line, here is my problem with the approach being suggested tonight. It would literally be written into the law that “these are the locations that the elected leaders of Newton say it’s ok to site a gun store.”
And we can argue that it’s not likely to actually happen for this reason or that reason, but that’s speculation.
In actual reality, on paper, we will have laid out areas of the city where we think it’s appropriate for a gun shop to be located.
And that is deeply offensive to those who live, work and recreate near those areas, not to mention the children who are victims of trauma and the adults who are disabled or have brain injuries who receive services literally next to the approved area on Rumford Ave – except theyre in Waltham so for some reason we don’t care about them? Even tho many of them are even Newton residents.
It sends the message that they matter less than the rest of Newton.
And in terms of the argument that we should allow gun shops to be zoned in Newton to avoid litigation, yet also say “oh don’t worry the City council will never vote for a special permit” … I believe this would actually put us at MORE risk of litigation.
A would-be gun shop owner follows all the rules that we have laid out to open a shop, applies for their special permit, and we still vote no? With all special permit votes, the Law Department reminds us we vote NOT as Councilors but as a “quasi judicial authority” which means we are supposed to be acting like judges, and cannot just vote no because we don’t like something, we have to make a credible case that the applicant did not meet our criteria.
Note the ordinance language right now even says we can IGNORE the buffer zones if we want, when considering special permits.
And if we set criteria for a gun shop that in actuality we never approve, then I don’t see how legally that puts us on any more sure footing than just zoning in such a way to preclude a gun shop from opening, or just passing a ban entirely, as Cambridge has done.
Thank you Emily Norton for standing up for this community and the vulnerable individuals who receive services on Rumford Ave
A lot of the same people who went into drama queen mode about that store were silent when a liberal Judge at Newton District Court encouraged an unidentified illegal alien with 7 Social Security Numbers, an out of State warrant, and pending drug charges to escape out the back door .. Pretentious virtue signalers.
Are you saying no men objected to the gun store? Lenny Gentile may object to being called a drama queen.
Councilor Norton:
Thank you for posting your perspective here. This has clearly been a unique issue before the council I’ve never seen the council more united on a particular issue in concept, yet more divided on the path to get to a desired result. I’ve watched much of the various votes, so I feel I’m at least passably educated on the issue. Certainly I’m no expert on second amendment issues, but I’ve tried to educate myself enough to have an opinion.
I’m glad the zoning restriction passed, and I’m stuck on one aspect of the ban you support. The Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which seems to be one the foremost legal experts on such gun laws, wrote to the city and said the following (it was included by the Mayor in her recent group email to the city, and folks can find the letters from the Giffords Law Center here
https://www.newtonma.gov/government/planning/plans-policies-strategies/firearms-zoning-amendment
along with the other items the city has posted):
“Regardless of the constitutionality of a law banning gun dealers, gun advocates will surely sue the city for such an
ordinance. In light of the fact that former President Trump filled the federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court,
with gun extremists, even a law fully consistent with existing constitutional precedent could face a serious threat. A
bad ruling in this case could jeopardize reasonable, constitutional, and effective laws that regulate dealers around
the country. Zoning and other regulatory measures, on the other hand, are effective tools which other cities have
successfully employed. Pursuing a ban at this time with the current makeup of the federal judiciary is not an effort
that Giffords recommends.”
Could you address how your ban should be pursued in light of this recommendation? Do you disagree with it? If so, why?
I understand that several prominent law firms have agreed to donate pro bono legal time to fight a potential legal battle on a ban on behalf of the city. I’m glad they are willing to make such a commitment, but the Giffords letter states that “a bad ruling in this case could jeopardize reasonable, constitutional, and effective laws that regulate dealers around
the country”. Why are you so sure we’d prevail, considering what the Giffords Center maintains? And if you fail in the court system, your ban could harm communities across the nation who took more measured steps to use zoning instead of an outright ban. Our arrogance here wouldn’t necessarily allow a gun shop to open on Washington Street, but it could provide new law that allows gun shops to open elsewhere.
I like to believe I fight for causes I believe in. But I’m also want to be practical and not engage in fights I’m likely to lose, especially if the results of such fights could harm others. And this seems to me to be a good example of the adage “bad facts made bad law”, in other words, if you wanted to pick a case to support a ban, it would have been better to do it absent a existing store about to open, and in the context of a zoning overhaul where other zoning concepts were on the table.
When I’ve asked others who support the ban this question, they can only point to the existence of the pro-bono legal help, as well as the position of folks like John Rosenthal regarding the ban. But I’ve never gotten a satisfactory answer as to why the Giffords Law Center was incorrect in its assessment.
I’d be a lot more likely to advocate for a ban if the above questions could be answered. Fundamentally, why are you right in your advocacy of a complete ban and why is the Giffords Center wrong?
I’d appreciate a response from anyone who supports to ban proposal, but I’m really hoping for the city councilors to speak up and advocate for their position and explain why they are ignoring the advice of the Giffords Center.
And to clarify, the Giffords Center’s advice matches that of Newton’s law department. For similar reasons. So some of the most informed legal minds on this subject (the Giffords Center) and our own law department agree.
Absent a response, I think the proposal to ban gun shops will fail. This is a question a lot of folks are asking in different ways. It isn’t enough to point to the emotional aspects of a potential gun store in Rumford, when none is yet planned and in my view would be extremely difficult to get through zoning with our new rules. If you fight the good fight (ignoring the legal advice of gun control advocates and our city’s lawyers to exercise discretion) and lose, what do we say to the communities around the United States that chose to exercise discretion, recognized the Supreme Court landscape, and picked a different battle?
Fig – There are strong arguments on both sides. None of us have a crystal ball. Here is why I think as I do.
– I don’t believe the gun enthusiasts are lacking cases to bring to the Supreme Court if they so desire, in other words they don’t need Newton to do anything, if they want to bring a gun ban case to the Supreme Court they can simply try to open a store in Cambridge which has had a ban on the books since 1986.
– I don’t believe we have inoculated ourselves from litigation, for the reasons I cite above
– The court has been conservative for a long time. If they had wanted to strike down all these gun limitations before now they could have. I think they realize they can only go so far beyond public opinion w/o risking a backlash. There is an interesting book about that in fact, that rather than purely cerebral scrutiny of the Constitution, Supreme Court decisions over the decades have often tracked public opinion (including when that was a bad thing) https://www.amazon.com/Will-People-Opinion-Influenced-Constitution/dp/0374532370
– I believe Newton has an obligation to take a stand against the culture of gun idolatry in this country and I don’t think doing so risks reduced rights across the country for the reasons above and in fact I feel that too often progressives are too timid in fighting for what we believe in, and in my opinion the strategy of zoning to allow gun shops here and hoping no one sues us fits that description.
Fignewtonville
If one of the 3 possible locations were in Waban, you can bet the farm the City would go for bat…
But alas, no fancy zipcodes = no support
Just this week, a California judge threw out an assault weapons ban that had been in effect for three decades. He stated an AK-47 is no different than a Swiss army knife. This is the reality we’re dealing with in 2021.
https://www.npr.org/2021/06/05/1003649674/california-assault-weapons-ban-disrespects-freedom-federal-judge-writes
Ms Frantz, perhaps you forget the second amendment? Like it or not, it is the reality of the American Constitution, equal in weight to those aspects you probably do favor (freedom of speech, non-establishment of religion, the whole search and seizure thing, etc.). Unless and until a subsequent amendment constrains or repeals A2 (very unlikely to happen given the culture and history of this country), all the anguished handwringing will be for naught.
Mr. Elmo – Do you think an AK-47 is equivalent to a Swiss army knife? This decision has little to do with the Second Amendment. It has to do with a judge who’s not working with a full deck making a ruling that could result in an increase in mass shootings.
AK-47’s are weapons of war and a ban on them in the civilian setting is perfectly reasonable. It does not impinge on the right to own guns.
@Fig, FTW.
FWIW, having won and lost appeals in the Federal courts, I can tell you that the fact pattern in a particular case can have a profound impact on both the lower court ruling, as well as the Supreme Court’s willingness to hear an appeal on a writ of certiorari.
What is bad for a ban in Newton is that the gun shop owner had already entered into a lease for the property prior to Inspectional Services and the City Council taking action. I would bet dollars to donuts that those circumstances alone would invite a constitutional argument along the lines of the ex post facto clause. It would also invite arguments concerning equity and due process.
Before Trump packed the federal courts–including the SCOTUS–with far-right judges, I would have said there was a 50/50 chance that a gun shop ban might be upheld. But it was never a slam dunk, and if I were a judge, I would be far more comfortable upholding a zoning restriction requiring a special permit than an outright ban.
Not that the City Council will listen to me, but in my opinion they should stop while they are ahead.
Jane, I understand you are unhappy about Senior Judge Roger Benitez’s decision in Miller v. Bonta. Okay.
But when you say he is “not working with a full deck”, why on earth would you say that? Did you read all ~100 pages of his decision? I did. As the judge explained, he is required to take the Supreme Court’s holding in Heller v. District of Columbia and apply it to the factual record before him. That is all he did. Please tell me, what part of his jurisprudence, exactly, entitles you to call him mentally deficient?
The judge even stayed his order so that the Ninth Circuit could review his decision. Why would you call him demented?
Senior Judge Benitez has served on the federal bench for 20 years. Whether you like his decisions or not, he doesn’t deserve arbitrary assaults on his mental capacity.
As Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them”. I believe him; I have seen it first-hand. You and everyone else who incorrectly focus on results rather than sound jurisprudence should show more civility toward our judges.
@bukek – isn’t Chestnut Hill a “fancy zipcode”?
Michael Singer, I don’t know whether Judge Benitez is crazy, but I do know he makes up facts. He falsely claimed that “more people have died from the Covid-19 vaccine than mass shootings in California.” Worse, he failed even to back up his baseless “facts” with a citation, which is very bad form for a judge.
So, four Pinocchios for Judge Benitez.
Agree with Ted. The part where he states that an AK-47 is equivalent to a Swiss army knife.
Jerry,
Since the mega landlord owner of the street has refused to rent to a gun store, chestnut hill is technically off the table…
Having a gun store in a upscale mall is not exactly good for other businesses in the mall… so even a future owner is unlikely to allow it in a “upscale mall”
@bugek – all three locations, both ‘fancy’ and not, are now quite effectively off the table since they would require a 2/3 vote of the council for a Special Permit. That’s a 2/3 vote of the same council who have all been trying to demonstrate that they hate gun stores even more than their all their colleagues.
I haven’t tuned in but tonight’s Council meeting is discussing adding an across-the-board ban on gun stores in addition to the zoning restrictions.
Michael –
IMO people should show more civility to people in all professions. Unfortunately, we’re not close to reality on that one. Nothing special about judges in my book. Just like every profession, there are great judges and there are terrible ones whose actions have destroyed peoples’ lives.