Massachusetts felt like it was being left out of the discussion of most anti-gun states. The leader for years, they've been eclipsed by states like New York, New Jersey, and California. It seems that many lawmakers took that personally and set out to rectify the situation as they saw it.
Which is not a good thing by any stretch of the imagination.
The latest effort isn't quite enough to help them regain the title, but it's still incredibly problematic, causing all kinds of confusion.
And now, the National Shooting Sports Foundation is kicking in some big money to fight this particular brand of stupid.
National Shooting Sports Foundation, the Firearm Industry Trade Association, donated $100,000 to Massachusetts Gun Owners’ Action League (GOAL) to support a legal challenge to the new onerous gun control law that was passed by the state legislature and signed by Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey. The donation will support the legal fight against the hulking gun control law that severely restricts lawful firearm ownership and creates a bureaucratic maze of licensing requirements that have still yet to be defined.
The law, H. 4885 – also known now as Chapter 135 – is clearly unconstitutional. The legislation was drafted in secret, even denying access to all Massachusetts lawmakers.
...
Nothing in the new law addresses criminals or holds criminals accountable for their actions. Instead, Massachusetts’ H. 4885 – or Chapter 135 – introduces new barriers to lawful firearm ownership and the exercise of the rights to keep and bear arms, which are expressly protected by the U.S. Constitution.
And let's be real, Massachusetts doesn't care about the right to keep and bear arms. While it was the birthplace of the American Revolution--and sparked off by an attempt to confiscate weapons, it should be remembered--the state has long turned its back on individual liberty.
They need to be reminded that the right to keep and bear arms is a constitutionally protected right.
Unfortunately, lawmakers there don't see it that way. They don't value your rights, and so they've continued to infringe upon it.
So now the NSSF is ponying up a pile of money to fight this, and I sincerely hope that it succeeds. The thing is, some of what is being required would be good things if it wasn't mandatory. De-escalation training and suicide prevention efforts? I'm totally on board with those right up until you start dictating them as required in order to exercise a basic right.
My hope is that the courts will agree that the law goes way too far, particularly in the other aspects of the measure. I'm afraid that the training requirements will be allowed to remain, at least until/unless the Supreme Court says they have to go, but that's just a gut feeling.
Yet the hinky way the law was crafted alone may be enough to get it overturned. That's not how our system is meant to work. Some things being secret is one thing--personnel issues, classified issues, etc--but creating laws that restrict basic constitutional rights isn't among those where it might be acceptable. Massachusetts, however, hasn't seen the right to keep and bear arms as a right for quite some time.
Now GOAL has a healthy war chest for fighting this blatantly unconstitutional intrusion into people's rights.
