Monday, Boston.com published a disturbing report about the long-awaited recommendations of a “panel of academic experts” for the increased tightening of the gun laws in what is already one of the strictest gun-control states, Massachusetts. Of the panel’s 44 recommendations, many of which involve means of determining “unsuitable persons” for legal gun possession, one in particular stands out: The state is considering denying the right to purchase a gun to anyone arrested for—not convicted of—a crime.
From Boston.com (emphasis mine):
The panel made 44 recommendations, including that Massachusetts join a national mental health database for screening potential gun owners, that it beef up firearms training requirements, and that it eliminate Class B gun licenses, which are seldom used.
It recommended that the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association help define a series of factors that could be used to prohibit “unsuitable persons” from acquiring firearms. The panel said the current process allows local law enforcement officials too much discretion to determine whether a person is suitable to be granted a license to carry.
It also said Massachusetts should require anyone wanting to purchase a hunting rifle or a shotgun to pass those standards of suitability. That could allow local police chiefs to deny gun purchases to people who have been arrested, but not convicted, of a crime.
Predictably, the “panel of academic experts” did not seek the input of those who might have offered some counterarguments and hands-on expertise, like the Gun Owner’s Action League of Massachusetts, whose response Boston.com included in their article:
The Gun Owner’s Action League of Massachusetts issued a statement, saying that it “was all but left out of the process of the creation of this report.
“If the Commission refuses to hear from the very people that actually know the gun laws and provide the most comprehensive gun safety training in the Commonwealth – its not worth the paper its printed on,” the statement said.
In his reaction piece, National Review Online’s Charles C.W. Cooke highlights the stunning nature of an American state that is seriously considering eliminating the constitutional right of free, unconvicted, potentially wholly innocent citizens.
One hopes I speak for everybody here when I say, No, no, and no again. No to the abject hysteria that has slowly grown in small parts of the country; no to the ignorance that is striping like acid through reason and through the law; and no to a cabal of politicians whose disdain for the Second Amendment is so pronounced that they are happy not only to undermine that provision in pursuit of their quixotic goals but to dilute the rest of the American settlement into the bargain. Enough is enough. Where art thou, ACLU?