On Wednesday Oct. 18, the Massachusetts House of Representatives passed a new gun control bill that aims to modernize and reform the state’s gun laws. The bill would further strengthen the state’s assault weapons ban, include new provisions on untraceable weapons (called “ghost guns”) and expand the authority of judges to suspend the gun licenses of at-risk individuals (called “red flag” laws).
Some have questioned the need for new gun laws. According to Everytown, a gun control advocacy group, Massachusetts has the lowest rate of gun violence in the United States, the second lowest rate of death by gun suicides and the eighth lowest rate of gun homicides in the country. The Giffords Law Center, a gun control advocacy group, has given Massachusetts an A minus rating on its current gun regulations. So why do our laws need updating? Clearly, things are already great here!
On Nov. 3 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. The State of New York made it a crime to carry a firearm outside of an individual’s house without determining “proper cause,” meaning gun owners needed to justify why they needed a concealed carry license. Two men, Brandon Koch and Robert Nash, were denied licenses and appealed this decision. The Supreme Court struck down these regulations, citing the deeply rooted history of carrying a firearm and the lack of a special need in carrying your own firearm.
Massachusetts had a similar law in which gun owners had to show good reason to carry a firearm. After the Supreme Court’s decision, these laws were wiped off the books.
In the past decade, Massachusetts has seen a deadly increase in violence. Since 2010, gun deaths have increased by 16 percent, with gun homicides increasing by 26 percent.
Despite this changing context around guns in Massachusetts, gun rights groups are fiercely advocating against this bill. Some may have seen lawn signs asking you to call your representatives to stop this bill. The Gun Owners Action League, a gun rights advocacy group, has called this bill an attack on the civil rights of gun owners and warns that the bill will “…will ring the dinner bell for violent criminals to flock to Massachusetts.” The Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association has come out in unanimous opposition to the bill because it would infringe on the right of off-duty officers to carry firearms.
More guns do not make us safe. According to Pew Research Center, the top three states with the highest gun murder rates were Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama. These states, according to Everytown, also have some of the least amount of gun regulations in the United States. Background checks are not required when purchasing a firearm nor are “red flag” regulations required. States with stringent gun control measures prevent gun violence, like Massachusetts.
Gun rights advocates, however, argue for the liberty of gun owners. They cite the Second Amendment’s “right to bear arms” and combating unnecessary government intrusion. The Supreme Court agrees with this right; in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court recognized the individual right to bear arms. This argument has its merits — the U.S. was birthed out of a conflict between the state and the individual. The first political parties were created from division about the extent of government involvement.
As someone who zealously believes in civil liberties, I have trouble justifying government intrusion in many cases. But I also believe in a state protecting its citizens. I believe in my own safety. I believe that I deserve to go to the mall, attend class and go to a restaurant without fearing the possibility of violence. I believe in the freedom of living.
I therefore implore the legislature to pass this bill with urgency to prevent any more unnecessary bloodshed and to keep all Massachusetts residents safe.
Sam Cavalheiro can be reached at [email protected] or followed on X, formerly known as Twitter, @samcavalheiro1.
