By Karen MacNutt,
Contributing Editor

On July 14th, Massachusetts held "public hearings" on the Governor's proposals for more gun laws. With well over 100 pages of gun laws already on the books, one would think there is little room for new legislation. The auditorium was packed with people who wanted to testify but few were able because the hearing was monopolized by public officials who were allowed to speak out of turn. Most citizens were never reached.

I do not like to write about my home state of Massachusetts because this is a national magazine. Some people, however, want to hear about what is going on in the "The People's Republic" of Massachusetts because it gives them an idea of what might be coming to their community.

Nationwide, the anti-gun leadership believes that if they disarm lawful citizens then, in 30 or 40 years, the supply of illegal guns will dry up. One of their tactics is to drive dealers out of business and to make the transfer of guns and ammunition difficult. Another tactic is to make gun ownership so onerous that no one will want to own a gun. A third tactic is to prevent people from getting interested in the hobby by shutting down all events that introduce the general public to the shooting sports, including shutting down all training and safety courses. The fact that such courses save lives is not a concern to those with an anti-gun fetish. All of these tactics are being played out in Massachusetts.

Using the excuse of a fatal accident in October of 2008, Governor Deval Patrick proposed regulations for "Firearms Exhibitions." Regulations have the force of law but they are not passed by the legislature. They are proposed and adopted by an agency-in this case the Massachusetts Department of Public Safety. The proposed regulation defined a "Firearms Exhibition" as any activity at a "facility" where a.) non-members are allowed to participate or attend and b.) where guns or ammunition are supplied to the participants by anyone. If a club allowed the local police or a school sponsored club to use its range, it would fall under this regulation.

The first part of the regulation requires the facility to be licensed by the city or town using the same vague standard ("you can only have the license if we feel like it") used for state pistol permits. The regulation then requires the facility to: 1) hire a police officer; 2) have one state certified instructor present for every 20 members of the general public present unless persons under 18 are admitted then there must be one state certified instructor for every five people in attendance and said instructors would "be directly responsible for the instruction, supervision and safety of the members of the general public participating;" 3) submit a plan for the event to the local police and the state police 30 days ahead of the event giving a list of guns and ammunition to be used, the number of people in attendance, the number of police hired, the names of the certified instructors, etc. etc. etc.

No money was provided to implement these regulations. Over 200 clubs in the state hold weekly events that might fall within the proposed regulation. If the State Police are serious about this, they will have to take officers off law enforcement duties to review the plans. Police officers, however, are not generally trained to be range officers, run matches or safety courses, or conduct events of any kind. The officers will need special training to responsibly perform these duties. No disrespect to our law enforcement community, but I would not want some police officer detailed according to the police seniority list, who had no part in the planning of my shooting event, to run the event. To add insult to injury, the event that started all of this was run by the local police.

The regulation was objected to by the Boy Scouts, women's groups that teach self-defense, those who run hunter safety and home safety courses, the MIT and Harvard University marksmanship teams, police officials who were afraid of being closed out of private ranges, numerous clubs and private citizens all of whom stated that their activities would be shut down. The cost of hiring a police officer by itself would price most safety programs out of existence.

The people who drafted the regulations either did not understand what they were doing or intended to make common shooting events impossible. Either way, people who are ignorant of an activity should not supervise its "safety." This is especially so when the civilian shooting community has a long and exemplary history of range safety.

The regulations are only one prong of Gov. Patrick's assault on firearms owners. Everything Massachusetts' gunowners do is already licensed. Being a good citizen is not enough to get a gun permit; you have to prove you have a particular need. If your permit is not renewed, you have to turn your guns in to the police as you can not own a gun, even in your own home, without a permit.

To buy a gun in Massachusetts, you must have a firearms license. All gun sales, both by dealers and private parties, must be reported to the Department of Public Safety on the state FA10 form. Failure to report the transaction, or a so-called straw sale where someone buys a gun for a second person who is not able to lawfully own a gun, violates a number of different state laws which can result in a prison sentence of up to 15 years. All lawful sales require positive identification, a police-issued license, and a reporting of the transaction.

Gov. Patrick says his new proposal, "shrinks the supply of illegal guns by limiting gun buyers to one firearms purchase per month." He would limit lawful sales (licensed and registered) to reduce unlawful sales. One part of the bill requires that all private sales take place at a gun store and be recorded by the dealer. This, in essence, ends private transfers. When added to the closing of many small dealers, it increases the difficulty of transferring guns lawfully.

The last public dealer in Boston was shut down when he filed his state license renewal late. Not only did the city refuse to renew the license, but it also prosecuted him for continuing in business for a few days after the license expired. The fact the dealer's federal license was still in force, made no difference. In the mind of Boston's anti-gun officials, the enemy is not crime or criminals, but guns and anyone who owns them.

Having private transfers (including gifts) go through a dealer creates a problem. Some years ago, our attorney general promulgated rules to prevent the sale of "Saturday Night Specials" using the consumer protection laws. Those rules required manufacturers to submit guns for testing. Guns of older design, such as the Colt single-action revolver, can not pass the test. Manufacturers did not bother to submit test guns for such models. Although these guns cannot be sold by dealers, they can be sold by individuals. Under the proposed law, there would be no legal way to transfer the older guns.

Under another provision, there would be a 2.5 year jail sentence for anyone acquiring more than one gun per month. That is separate from the 15 years state law now provides for a straw purchase. The Governor's spokesperson said that she knew of no valid reason someone needed to acquire more than one gun per month.

I can think of quite a few reasons:

• 1. As a collector, I may want to buy more than one scarce gun from an auction or estate sale.
  
• 2. I might want to replace guns lost in a fire or other casualty.
  
• 3. I may want to give away guns to a family member as part of an estate plan.
  
• 4. I may inherit guns. If my Aunt Ethel died owning 40 guns and I am her only heir, the current law says that I, by operation of law, become the owner of those 40 guns. With no action on my part, I "acquired" 40 guns on the day she died.
  
• 5. I may need to get guns back from the police. In Massachusetts, if the police do not renew my gun license, I must turn my guns over to them. In such a circumstance I would not be able to give my guns to a friend or relation to hold for me until the matter is resolved. State law also allows the police to place the guns in storage with a dealer and to send the bill to the gunowner. If that occurred, the gunowner could only recover the guns at the rate of one per month.
  
• 6. The same problem occurs if someone takes out a "domestic relations" restraining order on you. In the case of the restraining order, state law says the guns can only be recovered by a dealer. Restraining orders are generally granted without notice to the person being restrained but are set for review within two weeks. If, after a full hearing, it is determined that the person who sought the order was suffering from dementia, and the order was lifted, you could still only get one gun back a month from the dealer holding them in storage.

There are two big problems with the "one gun per month" rule. One, it assumes all gunowners aid criminals. That is a wrong and insulting slander on the people of the United States. Second, it prevents the legal and orderly transfer of property from one generation or person to the next. By doing so, it encourages a black market.

A disturbing trend in gun laws is the number of proposals directed at circumventing constitutional protections. It has been suggested that anyone charged with a gun crime should be held in jail without bail while waiting to be tried. Bail is a Constitutional right. It allows you to stay out of jail while you are awaiting trial. Some people say that if a person has committed a serious crime, he or she is a danger to society and should be held without bail. Having a gun, they say, is a serious crime and shows you are a dangerous person capable and willing to hurt others. Anyone, they say, who is charged with a gun crime, should be held without bail.

That begs the question. An accusation is not proof of guilt. People are presumed innocent until proven guilty. So the real question is, should someone who has not committed a crime be held in jail while the state tries to find evidence to prove the person's guilt? It makes no difference what the crime is, the state has not yet proven that: 1. A crime actually took place, and 2. That the accused committed the crime.

Holding someone in jail pending trial is very serious. It takes months, sometimes years, for criminal cases to come to trial. Think for a minute. What would happen if you were suddenly put in jail for 90 or 120 days. Would your employer hold your job? Would you be fired? If you lose your job, how long will your savings last? Of course, a big part of those savings will go to legal fees. Will you be able to pay your rent or mortgage or car payments or credit card bills or health insurance? Your financial ruin is assured. If you are found not guilty, no one will compensate you for your financial loss. It is well known that being held in pre-trial confinement reduces your chance of being found not guilty because it is difficult for you to help your lawyer prepare a defense. You could be held in pre-trial confinement for a longer period than you could be sentenced to if convicted. Nor is it unheard of for some prosecutor who objects to your having bail to offer a plea bargain that says if you plead guilty, the prosecutor will ask for a sentence that equals the time served in pre-trial confinement.

In Massachusetts, gun crimes include not having a license, violating a restriction on a license, improper storage of a gun, discharging a gun within 500 feet of a dwelling, hunting on Sunday or after dark, and improper transportation of a rifle or shotgun, among others. Because having a license must be presented as a defense to the crime of not having a license, you can be arrested for not having a license, even if you have one, and then be forced to go to trial to prove that you have a license. As bizarre as that sounds, it has happened.

Most gun laws are not directed at people who do violence. Their proponents say they are "reasonable" regulations. We are told that we should give up a little of our individual freedom for collective security. None of the laws have had any impact on reducing crime. Gunowners in Massachusetts, however, now deal with a complicated and confusing set of laws to which the politicians want to add even more laws.

While much of the country has learned that the society does not degenerate into anarchy when good people are armed, Massachusetts still fears its citizens. Perhaps elected officials find it easier to peddle fear than to address the problems of an urban society. Like the compulsive shopper, Massachusetts must have every new fad in gun laws, even when they make no sense in light of the current laws. The lesson, however, is that giving up freedom for the promise of safety never works. Those who want our freedom cannot accept the fact that their "solution" is unworkable so they keep demanding we give up more. We must reject their demands.