Post McDonald, the chances for Massachusetts’ recently revived “gun a month” bill are looking decidedly dodgy. You might even say that the legislation is Bay State gun control advocate’s last hurrah. Time will tell. One thing is clear: the Supreme Court’s ruling incorporating Second Amendment rights (defending them against state curtailment) has changed the entire tenor of the debate. The anti-gun crowd are, at least for now, wrong-footed. While this morning’s Boston Globe editorial on the subject still doesn’t link to House 4102 (can’t let the riff-raff think for themselves), the unnamed scribe takes a decidedly less strident tone. For example, the ed says the bill “appears” to pass constitutional muster. In fact, the paper just about admits the bill sucks . . .
GOVERNOR PATRICK’S proposed new gun law isn’t a panacea for urban violence . . .
Under current Massachusetts law, purchasers can legally buy as many firearms as they want. Some buyers then turn around and sell the guns to convicted felons. Of all the firearms recovered from crime scenes in this state last year and traced to their source, about 36 percent had been legally purchased in Massachusetts, according to the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives . . .
Yes, there’s some merit to the truism that committed criminals will always find a way to obtain guns. But this bill could keep weapons from some less committed criminals — including the young gang members responsible for the recent uptick in violence.
Earlier this month Patrick called for passage of the bill “so that we can report back to our communities and neighbors that we are doing everything we possibly can to stop the violence.’’ The measure is a small step toward safer neighborhoods, but an important one.
Or not.
