In last year’s pivotal New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that law-abiding Americans have the constitutional right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. This triggered an ongoing backlash from lawmakers opposed to the high court’s decision, and Massachusetts became the latest to offer its response.
The state House on Wednesday overwhelmingly approved the measure designed to strongly chip away at personal liberties. In a decisive 120-38 vote, lawmakers enhanced the current ban on so-called “assault weapons” and moved to eliminate so-called “ghost guns.”
The bill further prohibited an individual from carrying a weapon into another person’s residence without their expressed permission. It mandated that certain gun parts be equipped with serial numbers and registered with Massachusetts authorities.
And it did not stop there.
The push by House Speaker Ronald Mariano (D) would ban the firing of a weapon at or near homes and ban possessing a weapon while intoxicated. It would institute a prohibition on carrying firearms in schools, government buildings and polling places.
The 125-page monstrosity builds on the state’s current ban on “assault weapons” through prohibiting new transactions involving these popular sporting rifles.
It would ban a private owner from modifying a weapon to make it fire automatically.
The bill would create a new protocol for tracking firearms used in crimes. Proponents sold this to assist in curbing the flow of illegal weapons into Massachusetts.
The state’s current firearm registration system would be “modernized,” undoubtedly to be more burdensome for armed citizens. And lawmakers said it would improve data available for academic and government purposes.
These laws would be piled on top of what are already some of the toughest restrictions against exercising Second Amendment rights in the nation.
The Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association was successful in pushing lawmakers to change one provision. The group criticized the inclusion of off-duty police officers being prohibited from carrying their weapons in schools and government buildings, so this section was amended.
The next move will come from the state Senate, which has yet to release its edition of the sweeping gun control bill. The two chambers will work on a single bill and send it to Gov. Maura Healey’s (D) desk where it will unquestionably be signed.
As for its effects on the state, gun owners know a raw deal when they see one. Jim Wallace is the executive director of the Gun Owners Action League, and he observed that “all of it goes against us, the lawful people. There’s nothing in there that goes after criminals.”
He added that the state’s response to last year’s Bruen decision is nothing more than “a flat-out tantrum.”
Wallace’s criticism was echoed by Rep. Peter Durant (R) of Spencer, who declared the massive bill does nothing to actually protect the citizens of Massachusetts. “We have the responsibility to keep people safe, but that doesn’t mean we take away the freedoms and the rights enjoyed by those legal citizens.”
Apparently, it does.
Massachusetts is marching down the same path of a few other stubborn states attempting to trample on Second Amendment rights. Their reactions to the Supreme Court’s ruling are telling in that they are doing nothing to target criminals responsible for violence.
Instead, they respond by throwing every possible restriction against the wall to see what will stick in the face of certain legal challenges. This is not leadership, and it is not even responding to the real issue.
It is posturing, simply doing something for the sake of doing something.
