90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:

NRA In Mass. Responds To Legislators’ Gun Control Efforts

As Massachusetts lawmakers push for stricter gun control laws, Gov. Deval Patrick says he favors a number of measures, including limiting the number of gun purchases to no more than one a month.

State Rep. David Linsky, a Democrat from Natick, is sponsoring legislation to strengthen the state assault weapons ban, add mental health screening to background checks, and require gun owners to buy liability insurance, among other measures.

While there seems to be a good deal of momentum nationally and across the state for tougher gun laws, many gun owners and Second Amendment advocates say not so fast. Most of these measures, they say, will have no impact on gun violence and will simply take away the rights of lawful gun owners who use guns for recreation or to protect themselves.


  • Jim Wallace, president of the Gun Owners Action League, the NRA affiliate here in Massachusetts

Other stories from this show:

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • R.

    Great show and interesting topic – I applaud NPR’s motivation to discuss the topic of firearms in America in a fair and unbiased environment.  I did key in on one particular statement by State Representative David Linsky…  “I’m also going to be banning … large capacity magazines or clips because, quite frankly, there is no legitimate reason that people need to be having those on the guns that they’re keeping in their houses.”

    I question this statement, as it is my understanding that large capacity magazines are *already* banned in the state of Massachusetts.


    I am just asking for clarification on his statement, and/or questioning his motive on announcing it to NPR.  As a listener, my guess would be: 1) he misspoke, 2) he is not well educated or aware of the details regarding the laws he is trying to enact, or 3) he is taking advantage of  the publics’ low awareness of current laws and is trying to use a blanket statement to rally pro gun-control support.

    If the last statement “3)” is the case, I find the representative’s comment to be egregious.  He would be spinning a moot point in order to skew the listeners’ perspective into believing that these items are for sale in Massachusetts and implying that they are a danger.

    Again, thank you very much, NPR, for this thoughtful and fair discussion!

    • http://twitter.com/twosidesormore twosidesormore

       They will try to reduce the maximum capacity to another arbitrary limit of 7 rounds like in NY. It’s in Gov. Patrick proposed legislation. But it’s between the lines and the clueless press has not caught on (that is the other issue: the press knows nothing about firearms and only panders to the emotions of the people when an accident occurs).

      It is obvious that for our local politicians the final preferred magazine size is zero rounds. We have been going down this slippery slope for a while. At some point you run against the wording of DC s. Heller and if self-defense ability is affected, as I claim it is, we will have a Federal case.

      Now, Self-defense ability is affected by the smaller magazine for the admission of the same legislator, which creates an arbitrary double-standard :

      Indeed, they will keep the exception for law enforcement officers: but why would it be that LEOs need to have a Glock 22 with a 15+1 round magazine for self-defense, while a private citizen defensing his would only need 7? Most self- defense encounters have similar parameters for both civilians and police (less than 12 ft distance, one threat) and they both use their firearms rarely (I have seen a statistics that in my town, a suburb of Boston, cops fires their firearm once every 800  man-years….).  In a standard police shooting in large metropolitan departments the average hit rate is  30%, so a larger magazine increases self-defense abilities.

      The limit should be the normal size of the pistol grip, simply prohibiting magazines that are cospicuosly  protruding from the grip. So for a Beretta 92 the standard size would be 15, for a glock 17 the size would 17, for a M1911 the size would be 7 or 8 etc. At the same time  this would ban automatically 30 round magazines and the alike, making gun banners happy. But at least we would have a physical standard linked to something tangible, not made up numbers.

      The fair thing to do would be NOT to increase the arbitrariness of the LTC process in massachusetts. Chiefs have already expanded powers to deny LTC issued for All Legal Purposes and they routinely apply restrictions in a arbitrary and capricious manner.  What we need is a set of precise conditions that once fulfilled automatically grant the permit (A Shall Issue system). And I am for even tougher conditions: if you want to carry concealed it’s OK to ask ask me to have more training, and possibly qualify annually as LEO do.  If one wants to go armed he has to be trained at a higher level.

      But stop denying full LTCs out of the whims of a public servant. This lack of objective standards creates huge equal protection issues between different towns in Mass.

      • anglocooler48

        Brilliantly put — thank you. 

  • Dad-teacher-Marine

    In granting greater authority to police chiefs, I am NO.  I exited the Marines Corps in 1999.  When I returned to Massachusetts, the chief of my home town said he would not grant me a gun permit, because I did not have a job that required one.  YET, I taught weapons safety for the Marine Corps, to people who became police.

    storing weapons at an alternate location is a total violation of my rights.  I am not a criminal.  STOP treating me like one.  A 10 round magazine is fine. 

    Please remember that there was a death at Lincoln-Sudbury high that was accomplished via a knife and a kid with Aspergers. 

    Insurance is a violation of my rights.  I should not have to pay for your sense of security.

    Address mental health.  DONE.  Limit the size of magazines, FINE.  Rep. Linsky, treat me as an equal, not a criminal. 

    • Guest

       You don’t have to have a job that requires carrying a gun. You are being unjustly denied your rights. There is no provision that allows denial on the basis of job requirements.

  • salharmonic

    Buy liability insurance? Hey Linsky, you don’t serve on the board of an insurance company by any chance do you?  

  • Publius

    So insurance companies will be required to cover illegal acts ?  That might drive a few companies out of the state.

  • anglocooler48

    Issuing authorities (chiefs of police) should be required to handle permit applications on a Shall Issue, All Lawful Purposes basis. The present system is based on the applicant’s perceived political clout. While we’re at it, why are LTC  applicants in Boston required to go the Moon Island police range and demonstrate one-handed, double-action combat techniques, just to get a “TARGET ONLY” permit?  Why is it that my Class A LTC allows me to buy the most recent Glock or Ruger semi-auto but not a WWII Luger, Russian Nagant, or GI .45? The short answer is that the rules, regulations and laws in Massachusetts are utter nonsense. We should clear the decks and start over, with meaningful input from people who know what they are talking about.

    • D. G.

      There is nothing in Massachusetts law which prevents you from buying older handguns. Guns manufactured before 10.21.1998 can be sold and purchased in Massachusetts, regardless of the Firearms Weapons Roster.
      Read this: http://www.goal.org/handgunsales.html

      Also, you might want to obtain a C&R FFL 03 license. As a Federally licensed collector, you are allowed to make interstate purchases of “curios” and “relics”.

  • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

    http://youtu.be/I6_vCbi0JeI boston state house rally great speaker

  • Gtmercedese350

    The reason the bill has  7 round limit is because 90% of all semi-automatic firearms have at least a 10 round magazine. They simply do not make 7 round magazines. If they can take away the gun, they want to take away the magazine needed to fire it. They justify by saying “you don’t need more than 7 rounds” but if you have a semi-automatic weapon, you will not have “any rounds” because your magazine will be illegal. 

  • Sully4us

    As I read this all of Boston,Watertown and Cambridge is on lock down as Police search for another Muslim terrorist. So all of you in your homes just know that you are unarmed but the terrorist is not. Don’t you feel safer now.

  • Dad-teacher-Marine

    Well Sully, all those cops with guns did a lot to stop these jack-wagons before the bombing on Monday, and then again, 9,000 police with guns on Thursday.  So, on the one hand, guns would not have stopped this, since that is plainly evident, and TWO, I feel safer knowing police have the guns, because it would be asinine for a regular Joe with his hand-canon or BB-Gun to try to take this guy down.  Leave it to the pros.

    It is people like you who seek out and find an answer that only serves the lowest common denominator in society.  

  • Dad-teacher-Marine

    And Sully, how you like those Apples, it was a blow horn and words that ended the issue.  NOT A GUN.  As a former Marine, I have learned that the spoken word is far more useful then the gun, but having a gun reinforces the word.  Talk softly and carry a big stick

Hosts Meghna Chakrabarti and Anthony Brooks introduce us to newsmakers, big thinkers and artists and bring us stories of relevance to Bostonians here and around the region. Live every weekday at 3.

  • Listen: Weekdays, 3 p.m. on 90.9 FM
  • Live Call-In: (800) 423-TALK
  • Listener Voicemail: (617) 358-0607
Most Popular
This site is best viewed with: Firefox | Internet Explorer 9 | Chrome | Safari