Massachusetts State Flag
There’s no shortage of news demonstrating the complete and utter failure of Massachusetts Gun Control Laws and often the failure of our justice system to remove these undesirables from the public thereby reducing public safety.
Worse comments made by Massachusetts officials have been known to border on the insane when dealing with this issue. Then, as if that wasn’t enough, you have the local Boston media cheering them on using their normal lexicon of fear.
Therefore, as time and space allow (there are so many each week), I’ll devote a column to one of them along with some commentary for your review and comment. You can post a comment below or start a discussion.
Lets’ start with this fine example of a human being: Mr. Michael Majors's staring in: Chilling baby photo a detail in guns case.
When Boston police responded to a domestic violence call earlier this year at 10 Brinton Street, what they discovered inside Michael Majors's apartment gave them pause - a cache of unregistered semiautomatic firearms, a bulletproof vest, and a white powdery substance commonly used to pad quantities of illegal drugs before sale.
Like some sort of holiday or birthday picture, it was a snapshot of Majors's infant daughter. She wore a splendid pink dress, and on her lap rested a Cobray MAC-11 machine pistol, a rapid-fire weapon sometimes used by elite security forces.
Then enter the wit of District Attorney Daniel F. Conley with this gem of wisdom:
"That's a very dangerous weapon and to have it in the proximity of a child is inexcusable," said Jake Wark, spokesman for Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley.
Ah, but wait there’s more!
The defendant is well known to police, with multiple assault cases out of Roxbury District Court, authorities said. He was held on $100,000 cash bail pending an April 30 preliminary hearing.
So let’s EXAMINE the insanity of this for a moment, shall we?
First the media mentions a “unregistered semiautomatic firearms”, but fails to note the MAC-11 as fully automatic until later in the article. The media mentions a bullet-proof vest as if that too is illegal. It’s not. Then they mention a “white powdery substance”, but at the end of the article mention “At this time, however, the search did not reveal any drugs.”
Second, we have the brilliance of Mr. Conley stating the obvious, but the Boston Globe missing the point entirely that he shouldn’t have been able to acquire such a firearm in the first place. So where did he get it? If the Boston Globe really cared, they’d follow up on that part of the story and when able get a statement from the Boston Police or BATFE when the trace is complete. My bet? We’ll never get that story.
Third, and worst of all, a known felon, in possession of firearms, (which will undoubtedly fall upon the – other guy Mr. Cole) without a license AND possession of a Class III firearm to boot. Right there he should be put away for 10 years based on the State “Assault Weapon Ban” that’s still in effect in this State, and on Federal firearm charges as well, but let’s follow this and see if he ends up with a slap on the wrist or 2 years at best.
The gun laws of Massachusetts only affect the law-abiding. Remember such people are the students at universities, the shoppers at malls, you, your family and the other good people in society who needlessly die in these “gun free zones“. They obey the gun laws because they believe in laws, and because they don’t want a criminal conviction on their record. The problem is that these are the very people who we would want exercising their constitutionally protected civil right to keep and bear arms, since they could help stop criminals and otherwise protect themselves, their families, and the rest of society.
You see, the real failure of Massachusetts Gun Control, is the Statists focus on the object; the gun. So, as the old saying goes, “If you ban all firearms, only criminals will have guns.” is proven yet again. What we need are better laws.
Comments
I had no idea it was so bad up there. The type of "journalism" on display explains A LOT about why Chappaquiddick Ted is re-elected time and time again.
Is gun control as effective as Marijuana control?
You're looking in the wrong end of the funnel. What we need may be better laws. But to get them we would need better legislators. To get better legislators we would need better voters. Our schools and media will see to it that that never happens. We are coming up on the 234'th anniversary of the Battles of Lexington and Concord on April 19th, 1775. One of the most importand yet least remembered days in American history. It was an unintended consequence of a botched gun control raid by General Gage, then military governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. The 3,000 colonists who took up arms against their own government on that fateful day would have a hard time recognizing today's Peoples Republic of Massachusetts, but they knew all about politicians like Senators Kerry and Kennedy.
Better laws have nothing to do with it. Criminals don't obey laws. We need better judges to give reality to sentences.
Rich I appreciate the response. The premise, for good or ill, is that with "better laws" it will make it easier to for the Police, Prosecuting Attorneys to make their cases and leave the Judges little choice, but to put these people away. The other issue, I didn't address, is where we are going to put them. With most of the jails, sadly, already at capacity, but that's a story for another day.
DDS -- NRA Life Member, I appreciate the response and you've *almost* hit the nail on the head.
"To get better legislators we would need better voters. Our schools and media will see to it that that never happens."
This is exactly why this column now exists. This is how we will win the hearts and minds of the public through bypassing the lies told by the mainstream media outlets. As the saying use to go, "Now Is The Time For All Good Men To Come To The Aid Of Their Country." I've heeded the call.
So spread the word because with your help and support, along with those like you; we'll never say never.
Just Remember the firearms DID NOT kill the police the CRIMINAL pulled the trigger and the plea-bargans of the justice system failed. Stronger sentencing buld more prisons for both the Law Breakers and Liberals!
Michael Majors is my brother i grew up with him, he mentored me, and taught me everything i know about these streetz, and now people wanna talk bad about my bro F all ya'll white people who think he did something wrong he just did what he needed to do and thats that
i know if he had a chance to do it all over again he wouldn't change anything he would do it all the same and thatz from the heart
I Love U my bro and that is the truth
Marcy Saintz
Ron, I don't think you or MassGunLawReform get something important. The founding father added no restrictions or addendums to the Second Amendment. Yet they specifically worded it to say, " the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." But then the U.S. Supreme court has "upheld the constitutionality of longstanding restrictions on the personal possession of firearms, including handguns." What'a wrong here? By definition, adding legal restrictions to a Constitutional right is adding "infringements" to those rights and opens the door to and starts a legal journey down a road to total ingringement of those rights. An example of this is the passage of the National firearms act of 1934, which began the infringement of the right to own certain firearms (machineguns and certain other weapons) by registering, taxing ownership and mandating a background check for owners. Then the Firearms Owner Protection Act of 1986 ban the civilian ownership -- contd.
-- contd. - correction: banned the civilian ownership or transfer of any fully-automatic weapon which was not registered by May 19, 1986, effectively freezing the total number of weapons availible. This caused the price of "legal" machineguns and other Class III weapons to skyrocket, putting ownership out of reach of most Americans. The next step, of course, will be to confiscate all these registered guns as much too dangerous to own. Do you see the road we're on? Once Americans allowed for infringements of our precious right, the end became inevitable. In fact the end is very near - unless you and others begin to "get" this fact: All "regulations" and "controls" of Second Amendment rights are unconstitutional infringements. These infringements startedunder the guise and lie that such were necessary to prevent crime. Those, who by design or by stupidity, allow these ingringements will likewise one day lose all of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by and fought so hard for by so many.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!