NORTHAMPTON, Mass. (WGGB) –The gun control debate has been at a fever pitch since Friday’s massacre Sandy Hook Elementary School. Legislators across the country have been declaring it’s time to reexamine gun laws.
That includes the Federal Assault Rifle Weapons Ban President Bill Clinton enacted in September of 1994 that expired after 10 years. “At the national level the reinstatement of the assault weapons ban, so it takes into account the evolution of technology, so it takes into acct the increased deadliness and the magazines of multiple rounds, and frankly the type of ammunition,” Governor Deval Patrick said.
Governor Patrick spoke of the tragedy today, about the need to eliminate access to weapons like the AR-15 semi-automatic used at Sandy Hook. Massachusetts already has its own assault weapons ban, and those who want to buy rifles must be licensed through local police departments.
The governor would like to limit purchases to 1 gun a month, and joining the National Mental Health Registry, so if mental health is an issue, it will come up in background checks.
While Gov. Patrick is pushing for restrictions on both state and federal levels, Northampton Mayor David Narkewicz is part of a coalition, Mayors Against Illegal Guns. He hopes this will turn from a conversation, into actual action. “We understand and respect the rights of lawful gun owners, I think the concern is to try to make sure we a eliminate weapons that have no place with sportsmen and hunters, and also look at eliminating some of the loopholes like the secondary gun markets and people who buy them and sell them to those who probably wouldn’t qualify.
Narkewicz hopes that in the wake of Newtown’s tragic events, something will finally get done. “Im hoping that we can keep this momentum alive and not let this congress go by without this debate taking place,” he stated.
There have been several attempts at renewing the ban, including proposal by Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) in 2003 before the federal ban expired, and in 2009 by then Attorney General Eric Holder.
Senator Dianne Feinstien (D-CA) said she’d try again after Sandy Hook.
“Mayors Against Illegal Guns… An AR-15 is not an illegal Gun unless it is illegally possessed by a former fugitive, an UN-licensed individual, or one of 500 things this state claim are “Evils”
You wanna be against illegal guns fine but don’t make more guns illegal because you think it will rid the gun problem in this country IT WILL NOT!
And how does that stop criminals from getting a gun again?
The reactionary, impulsive nature of this does not bode well for us citizens. I’m awaiting the first reports of a law abiding citizen losing his guns because he has ADHD. Don’t argue it won’t happen, because it’s already been discussed before this. Your government has it’s own interests in mind, not yours.
Im sure all the drug dealers, gang members and general criminals are a worried as I am about the possibility of more gun laws.
MA Laws more strict, how can they be? I think they should also make drugs illegal too.
Whose gonna go tell all the drug dealers about all these regulations? This **** talk by liberal garbage doesnt do ANYTHING to stop REAL gun crime because guns involved in criminal activity are all possessed illegally. #stupidliberaljackasses
i dont understand how this gun is really anymore dangerous than a handgun… mass is restricted to a 10 round mag regardless of what gun it is… i understand that the bullets are bigger but does that really matter?? in my opinion if the mother had her guns locked up in a safe this would probably have never happened… so instead of making gun laws more strict maybe they should be more strict about how they need to be stored and not banning them
Ok, so they can draft legislation to ban or restrict the manufacturing of “new” types of assault weapons and large capacity magazines. However, the old guns would be “Grandfathered in” and not subjected to newer laws (also known as Pre-Ban), thus leaving millions of Pre-Ban weapons still in circulation. So the real question how will they enact new legislation that will show an immediate impact on how these “newer” laws can be effective immediately WITHOUT people using the Pre-Ban exclusionary rule as a loophole?
That is exactly my point. I know this is something that indeed must be addressed. The challenge would be, how do you modify legislation without stirring up the hornet’s nest of people not feeling as if their rights are being stripped? I’m not suggesting civil war, but there are indeed those fanatics who will not take lightly to parting with their weapons nor the feeling as though they are losing some part of their constitutional right.
Cant, not without starting a war with the citizens.
Not just our rights, but most of us are aware of the fact that 200+ million people have died, by their governments hand, after the populace was disarmed. It has happened repeatedly, and it is naive to think it won’t happen again.
The mandatory one year illegal possession of a firearm law on the books now is not enforced