Chairman Timilty, Chairman Naughton, and through you to the members of the Committee on Public Safety,
I thank you all for allowing me this opportunity to address you regarding this bill, H. 4121 “An act relative to the reduction of gun violence,” and the underlying issue at hand of violence in our communities.
I applaud the speaker and the committee for your continued efforts towards the reduction of gun violence, a just and noble cause. I think it is safe to say that all residents of Massachusetts would agree to the importance of reducing violent crimes and can support the attention the Legislature is providing this issue. However, I believe that the focus of this bill must be broadened so that it might effectively carry out its goals of reducing violence rather than narrowly and unfairly attacking the fundamental, constitutional rights of gun owners in Massachusetts.
This bill includes many provisions that seem to me, and many other gun owners, to be arbitrary measures presenting themselves as ‘solutions’ to problems that don’t actually exist. For example, this bill seeks to “encourage physicians to speak with their patients and patients’ families about the risk posed by access to lethal means in the home, and to have such discussions in a medically appropriate manner.” How a physician discussing one’s personal information regarding gun ownership - in a medically ‘appropriate’ manner - will in any way reduce violent crime is for me very difficult to piece together.
Additionally, this bill seeks to increase penalties in several areas that respectively have little or nothing to do with violent crimes committed with a gun. Areas where law abiding gun owners will be further regulated include increased penalties for storage violations, failure to report a lost or stolen firearm, and new penalties being established for not renewing a license to carry and gun registration three months prior to its expiration. Again, there are already penalties in place for these violations. Simply asking those lawfully exercising their rights of gun ownership to pay greater fees and fines is nothing more than a lazy way for the Legislature to feel it is addressing the issues. While they falsely tout tighter regulations, I would be shocked if any of these measures has any measureable impact on violent crimes.
Furthermore, expansion of the ‘suitability requirements’ to cover FID cards, expansion of automatic disqualifiers for gun ownership to include misdemeanors carrying a 1-year minimum sentence, restricting the purchase of guns to 1 per month, and the elimination of private gun sales are all measures that will have incredibly widespread negative unintended consequences against those who are doing the right thing and exercising their right to lawfully own firearms.
I firmly believe that here in Massachusetts, we already have in place restrictions that exceed what would be considered a reasonable level of government regulation on the ownership of firearms. As it stands now, and as someone who has gone through this experience, individuals who seek to exercise their second amendment right to bear arms must go through a complicated and extensive process that can also be expensive.
First, one must complete expensive safety training, file a costly application, undergo a criminal background check, receive multiple personal references, and then hope that the local chief of police does not hold a personal grudge during your mandatory interview. We go through all of this simply to receive a license which will generously allow us to exercise our constitutional right to legally own and carry a firearm in Massachusetts.
Acquiring and storing a firearm is another matter entirely through which one must comply with further regulations, restrictions, and registering of firearms from the Attorney General and the Executive Office of Public Safety.
When all is said and done, the process can cost hundreds of dollars and take many months... to exercise a constitutional right.
And so I ask you now, do you truly believe that an individual with the intent to commit a crime with a firearm will take the time to carefully go through safety training and then register themselves and their guns prior to conducting such an act? Can you honestly sit down with a victim’s family and tell them that if the fine for missing a license renewal deadline had only been greater their son or daughter would not have been shot?
Criminals, by definition, break the law. Regardless of what the State’s firearm regulations are, criminals will violate them.
This legislation sadly misplaces blame for violent crime on citizens who lawfully seek to own firearms. By increasing regulations, record keeping requirements, local police discretion, and fines for a number of minor infractions, we are creating an environment where those looking to own firearms as a means of self-preservation, recreation, competition, or simply to exercise their rights as US citizens, are left abused by the laws that profess to keep them safe.
Sadly, these policies may dissuade someone from choosing to defend themselves, their families, and their homes with a firearm simply because they believe that it is not worth the trouble. Now, I ask you, how many people have, in some easily accessible place in their home, a fire extinguisher? Of course nearly everyone does. And how many have ever used that fire extinguisher to put out a fire directly threatening their life, family, or property? I would guess that this number is very low. However, would any of us get rid of such an indispensable tool in our home? Or limit and tax its usage? No, because it would be irresponsible and dangerous not to equip yourself for the worst-case scenario, although I pray that you will never need to use it.
How is a firearm owned for self-defense in a similar ‘worst-case scenario’ any different? Wouldn’t it truly be a tragedy if someone chose not to pursue owning a firearm solely because the Commonwealth has become too hostile towards such lawful ownership, and then fell victim to a home break-in or other violent crime that could have easily have been prevented?
Overall, this package feels to me like the Commonwealth has again seized upon an opportunity of tragedy, an opportunity that they are willing to exploit to impose strict, confusing, and arbitrary regulations upon those who already obey the law and who pose an immeasurably small risk to the rest of society.
If this bill comes to actualization, who’s to say there will not be further restriction and regulation in the future? When will these restrictions and regulations become too oppressive if not now?
If you believe in the right for self-preservation for not yourself, but your family and home, I urge you to vote that this bill ‘ought not’ pass.
Sincerely,
Joseph McKenna
774-230-5080
