💾 Archived View for spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › anarchy › gunfact.dos captured on 2023-07-22 at 17:08:22.
⬅️ Previous capture (2023-06-14)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
FIREARMS, HUNTING & TRAPPING:
Facts and Positions
Stephen B. Jeffries
(Extensive information contained herein was extracted from FACT Sheets prepared by Gun Owners' Action League.
Mr. Jeffries wishes to publicly acknowledge the inestimable contribution of GOAL as the original source of much
of the below listed text and information.) CONTENTS
PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF FIREARMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Who owns firearms?: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Scholarly opinion: Guns do not cause crime: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Public opinion polls: Americans support gun ownership:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Police view: licensed gun owners can deter crime: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Private firearms ownership in Massachusetts:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
WAITING PERIODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Would a 7 day "waiting period" have stopped John Hinckley?: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Would a "waiting" or "cooling-off period" reduce crimes of
passion?: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Would a "waiting period" reduce suicide rates?: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Would a "waiting period" keep guns out of the wrong hands?: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Do states with "waiting periods" have lower crime rates?: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Would a "waiting period" reduce the number of guns used in
crimes?:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Would a "waiting period" reduce violent crime?: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
How would a "waiting period" affect law-abiding gun owners?:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Is there an alternative to "waiting periods"?:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
ASSAULT RIFLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
What is an "Assault Rifle?":. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
What is Meant by a Semi-Automatic Rifle or Shotgun?:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
What kind of license is required for a semi-automatic gun?: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Definition of an automatic firearm: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
What is required to lawfully possess a full automatic?: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
How would an "Assault Rifles" Ban have affected the Stockton,
California tragedy?:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
What are some purposes for which "Assault Rifles" are used?:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
What about Conversion to an Automatic Firearm?: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
RESTRICTED LICENSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Background: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
What affect did this ruling have on licensed gun owners?: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Has the legislature clarified its intent?:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Are restricted licenses still a problem?: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
What are examples of "restricted" licenses?:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
How are "restricted" licenses issued?:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
What would happen if licenses were "unrestricted"?: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Other problems with "restricted" licenses:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
This policy seems extremely unfair. Is there anything that can be
done?:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
HUNTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Is hunting a safe sport?: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
How is hunting regulated?:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
What do sportsmen do to help wildlife?: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
What would be the effect if hunting were to be banned?: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
TRAPPING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
How is trapping regulated in Massachusetts?:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Where are traps set?: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Are leghold traps a "vicious" way of trapping an animal?: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
What is the purpose of trapping?: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
What kinds of animals are trapped?: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
MANDATORY TRAINING AND TESTING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
What is Massachusetts' firearms accident rate?: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Would a mandatory program affect the accident rate?:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
How would a mandatory training and testing program be run?: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
How much would it cost to create a mandatory training program?: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Has the state legislature voted on this issue?: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Is there an alternative program?: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
SNUB-NOSED HANDGUNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
What is a "snub-nosed" handgun?:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Are "snubbie's" used for legitimate sporting purposes?: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Is the "snub-nosed" handgun the criminal's choice?: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Are "snub-nosed" handguns cheap to buy?:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Who owns "snub-nosed" handguns?:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
PLASTIC GUNS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
What are plastic guns and who manufactures them?: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Do any guns have plastic parts?:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
What do experts say about plastic guns?:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Is there evidence that the Glock 17 can bypass security?: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Is there a problem with America's airport security?:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF FIREARMS
Who owns firearms?:
In 1986, Texas A & M University
released a nationwide survey
conducted by professors William Pride
and O. C. Ferrell which found that
higher-income whites with some
college education are those most
likely to own handguns, and that
35-40% of these handgun owners are
female.
In 1989, The Message, a monthly
newspaper for pro-active gun owners,
surveyed its Massachusetts readers.
The survey results showed that
Massachusetts gun owners are well
represented in many professions:
executive level management, service
oriented jobs, education, health and
human services, and sales. Over 40%
of the households surveyed had an
income of more than 45,000 per year.
78% of those surveyed stated they
owned or carried a firearm for
self-protection.
Scholarly opinion: Guns do not cause
crime:
In 1981, the U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of
Justice released a quarter-million
dollar study, Weapons Crime and
Violence in America, conducted by
research sociologists James D. Wright
and Peter H. Rossi of the University
of Massachusetts at Amherst. The
report concluded that there appeared
to be "no strong causal connections
between private gun ownership and the
crime rate."
Public opinion polls: Americans
support gun ownership:
An April 6, 1981 Lou Harris
poll showed 52% of Americans
maintain: "Gun control does not get
at the heart of solving violent
crime."
A May 1981 poll by Glamour
magazine revealed 68% of its
readership think handguns should not
be banned, and 53% believe people
need handguns to protect themselves.
(12% were undecided).
An October 1981 American
Druggist poll showed over 90% of its
readership oppose firearms
restrictions for law abiding
citizens; 80% own guns; and 20% have
successfully used guns for
self-protection.
A June 24, 1982 George Gallup
poll revealed 54% of Americans
believe it should be legal for
individuals other than police to own
handguns.
In a readers poll conducted by
People magazine after the 1985 Bernie
Goetz incident, 56% felt Goetz was
justified in his actions and 87% felt
they had the right to be armed with a
handgun for self-defense.
In November 1976, Massachusetts
defeated a referendum to ban private
firearms ownership by a vote of 69%
to 31%.
Police view: licensed gun owners can
deter crime:
Crime Control Research Project
of Bellevue, Washington polled police
and found 64% believe that an armed
citizenry deters crime.
In 1986, the National
Association of Chiefs of Police and
the American Federation of Police
conducted a poll of their members and
found: 96% did not think banning
civilian ownership of firearms would
reduce crime or keep criminals from
getting guns; 98% believed citizens
had the right to own and use firearms
for protection; and 89% did not
believe gun control laws had any
effect on criminals.
In 1989, the National
Association of Chiefs of Police
surveyed command officers from across
the country. 90% did not believe that
the banning of firearms (handguns,
shotguns or rifles) would reduce the
ability of criminals to obtain such
weapons. 87.6% did not believe that
the banning of private ownership of
firearms would result in fewer crimes
from firearms.
Private firearms ownership in
Massachusetts:
From 1977 to 1984, the number
of Licenses to Carry Firearms
(handgun permits) tripled, while the
crime rate decreased, in some areas
by as much as 15.9%.
There are currently 2 million
licensed gun owners in Massachusetts.
According to the Department of Public
Safety, an infinitely small number of
them ever come into conflict with any
state law, be it traffic or firearms
laws.
There are more than 500
sportsmen's clubs across
Massachusetts. Competitive shooters
participate in organized matched,
some hoping to join the U.S. Olympic
Shooting Team -- the team with the
most Gold Medals won for America.
WAITING PERIODS
Would a 7 day "waiting period" have
stopped John Hinckley?:
No. Hinckley purchased the gun
he used in the Reagan assassination
attempt six months prior to
committing the crime. Further,
Hinckley had other handguns at his
disposal, guns which he purchased
under California's 15 day "waiting
period".
Would a "waiting" or "cooling-off
period" reduce crimes of passion?:
No. According to the FBI, most
of these types of homicides occur
between 10 PM and 3 AM -- long after
gun stores are closed. This negates
the argument that people "run out to
buy a handgun", then commit a
homicide with it.
A Kansas City study on domestic
homicides found that in 50% of these
cases, police had been summoned to
the home at least five times, and in
90% of the cases, police had been
summoned at least once. The solution
to this problem is not a "waiting
period" for gun purchases. Law
enforcement must have a more serious
attitude concerning domestic
violence.
Would a "waiting period" reduce
suicide rates?:
No. The Center for Disease
Control (CDC) stated in April 1985
that "waiting periods have no effect
on suicides."
Would a "waiting period" keep guns
out of the wrong hands?:
No. Some assert that New
Jersey's "waiting period" for gun
purchases "caught 33,000 criminals"
attempting to obtain permits to
purchase handguns. However, the
majority of these rejections were not
based on criminal records. Further,
the figure cited includes rejections
of separate "permits to carry
concealed," which are regularly
denied to honest citizens with no
criminal record.
As Willis Booth, a former chief
of police and lobbyist for the
Florida Police Chiefs Association
stated: "I think any working
policeman will tell you that the
crooks already have guns. If a
criminal fills out an application...
he's the biggest, dumbest crook I've
ever seen."
Additionally, research
indicates that "waiting periods" have
no effect on criminals: 1) A study
reported in Annals of the American
Academy of Political Science in May
1981 found that "most felons and
other ineligibles who obtain guns do
so not because the state's screening
system fails to discern their
criminal record, but rather because
these people find ways of
circumventing the screening system
entirely"; 2) A Justice Department
study released in October 1985
demonstrated that convicted felons'
primary mode of obtaining guns is
theft; 3) A study from the
University of Massachusetts, funded
by the Justice Department, found that
criminals get guns from other
criminals.
Neither a "waiting period" nor
any other additional restriction on
the lawful purchase of firearms would
affect criminals, since they don't
abide by the law.
Do states with "waiting periods" have
lower crime rates?:
No. Research has not found any
evidence of lower crime rates in the
16 states with " waiting periods".
In fact FBI statistics show the
opposite to be true: States with
"waiting periods" are those with the
greatest increases in homicide and
violent crime rates. For example,
California's homicide rate increased
126% as the state increased its
"waiting period" from 48 hours to
five days to 15 days. During this
period, the national homicide rate
rose by less than half that amount.
Would a "waiting period" reduce the
number of guns used in crimes?:
No. "waiting periods" assume it
is primarily newly purchased guns
that are used in crime, since
criminals don't have to "wait" to use
guns they already possess. POLICE
FOUNDATION's 1977 study, Firearms
Abuse found that only 2.1% of all
handguns traced to crime were less
than one month old -- which is four
times as long as the proposed
"waiting period". Thus, more than
98% of handguns used in crime are not
newly purchased guns, and therefore
would not be affected by any "waiting
period".
Would a "waiting period" reduce
violent crime?:
No. Like all other laws, a
"waiting period" law would only
affect those people who abide by the
law; by definition that excludes
criminals. According to FBI
statistics, 80% of violent crimes are
committed by career criminals, and
30-35% of robberies and murders are
committed by people who are on some
form of conditional release ... bail,
parole, probation or suspended
sentence. There is no doubt we must
address the issue of violent crime
and those who commit it, but "waiting
periods" would have no effect on
either.
How would a "waiting period" affect
law-abiding gun owners?:
A "waiting period" would
infringe upon the law abiding
citizens' right to purchase personal
property and take possession of it
when he/she wishes. For example, a
law abiding gun owner would have to
wait seven days before taking
possession of every gun he/she
purchased lawfully, even if bought
only one day apart. Further, buying
guns legally requires the government
to approve the purchase; if John Doe
were criminally minded, he wouldn't
be buying guns legally in the first
place -- as research already cited
indicates. He would be getting guns
from illegal sources and/or could use
firearms he already possessed to
commit a crime.
Additionally, a "waiting
period" can endanger the safety of
law abiding citizens: 1) In July
1985 a California woman who was being
terrorized by her neighbor had to
endure 15 additional days of torture
before she was allowed to bring home
the gun she subsequently used in
self-defense against her attacker; 2)
Potential victims of the so-called
California "Night Stalker" were
reportedly upset at having to wait 15
days to protect themselves: 3)
During the Liberty City riots in Dade
County, Florida, law enforcement
leaders publicly informed citizens
that they could not protect them so
citizens would have to protect
themselves -- but a county "waiting
period" thwarted the attempts of law
abiding citizens who wanted to
purchase handguns for self -
protection.
Is there an alternative to "waiting
periods"?:
Yes. For every 500 serious
crimes, only 20 adults and five
juveniles serve any time in jail.
Simple logic dictates that crime will
continue until criminals are taken
off the streets. America's criminal
justice system must be held
accountable for this public safety
failure and strengthened so that it
serves the interest of law-abiding --
rather than law-breaking -- citizens.
ASSAULT RIFLES
What is an "Assault Rifle?":
According to the Department of
Defense "assault rifles" are "short,
compact, selective-fire weapons that
fire a cartridge intermediate in
power between sub-machinegun and
rifle cartridges." Their
characterized distinction is based on
weight, to a lesser degree, power and
the immediate ability by virtue of a
selector switch to fire fully
automatic. As such they are already
regulated under the National Firearms
Act of 1934.
What is Meant by a Semi-Automatic
Rifle or Shotgun?:
There are essentially seven
methods of modern rifle mechanisms:
bolt action, lever action, slide
action, single shot breech action,
falling block rifles and shotguns,
semi-automatic and fully-automatic.
A semi-automatic rifle or
shotgun is one that requires a person
to pull the trigger for each
individual shot to be fired. A
semi-automatic places a new round in
the chamber by use of the expanding
gasses of the previously fired round,
but the person must still pull the
trigger (again) for this round to be
discharged. The semi-automatic
action is merely a convenience to the
shooter and has no effect on the
caliber of the cartridge, the gun's
power, or its accuracy.
Here are some common examples
of semi-automatic rifles and
shotguns: All civilian production of
Browning, Colt, Remington, and Ruger
rifles except bolt-actions; U.S.
surplus rifles including M1, M1
Carbine, GR43, AK47, FN49, Haekame,
Rashid and SKS; all Browning,
Remington, Mossberg and Winchester
shotguns except slide action, breech
action or over and under type. The
average cost of these firearms is
$500.00, with many selling for over
$1,000.00 and at least one model, the
Heckler and Koch PSG 1 Marksman,
selling for $8,599.00.
What kind of license is required for
a semi-automatic gun?:
Mere possession of a
semi-automatic rifle or shotgun in
Massachusetts has required licensing
since 1969. Violation is punishable
by a mandatory one to five years in
prison. The licensing procedure
requires a criminal records check.
In the case of pistols, revolvers or
semi-automatic handguns, the
licensing procedure also includes
fingerprinting and the applicant must
have no felonies and no history of
drug or alcohol abuse or mental
instability. Prior to 1969, no
license was required for lawful
possession of semi-automatic rifles
or shotguns. The law regarding
handguns, including semiautomatic
handguns, has been in effect since
1906.
Definition of an automatic firearm:
An fully-automatic firearm or
machinegun, as defined under the
National Firearms Act of 1934 is "any
weapon which shoots, is designed to
shoot, or can be readily restored to
shoot, automatically more than one
shot without manual reloading by a
single function of the trigger. The
term shall also include the frame or
receiver of any such weapon, any part
designed and intended solely and
exclusively, or combination of parts
designed and intended, for use in
converting a weapon into a
machinegun, and any combination of
parts from which a machinegun can be
assembled if such parts are in the
possession or under the control of a
person."
What is required to lawfully possess
a full automatic?:
Federal law prohibits the
transfer and possession of any such
fully automatic firearm, which
includes an AK-47, not lawfully
possessed prior to May 19, 1986.
Those held prior to that date may be
transferred to individuals licensed
to possess same who, for each gun
purchased, pass a federal record
check (which usually takes 90 days),
pay a $200.00 transfer tax, are
finger printed and secure a sign-off
from their local police. In
Massachusetts, there is also a
requirement for a separate state
license issued at the discretion of
the police chief.
How would an "Assault Rifles" Ban
have affected the Stockton,
California tragedy?:
Patrick Edward Purdy, the
murderer of five school children, had
been arrested for the following
offenses during the ten year period
before the event: possession of
drugs, possession of dangerous
weapons, sex offenses, attempted
robbery, extortion, receiving stolen
property, conspiracy and resisting
arrest.
On the day of the massacre,
Purdy would have been incarcerated
were it not for the failing criminal
justice system which allowed Purdy to
plea bargain in every case to
misdemeanor offenses. Additionally,
in April 1987 mental health workers
in a formal report classified Purdy
as "a danger to himself and others" -
- grounds for psychiatric commitment
which never occurred.
It is proper enforcement of
existing laws, not enactment of new
ones, that would have prevented this
tragedy. (The same problem occurred
in January 1981 when John Hinckley
was caught trying to smuggle a gun
onto a plane but was set free a few
days later.)
Most proposals to ban "assault
weapons" contain language that would
allow a board or commission to
"create a roster" of newly described
"assault weapons." But all proposals
we have seen affect only those
persons who are already in lawful
possession of a semiautomatic
firearm, with no provisions for
punishment of those who possess them
or use them illegally.
What are some purposes for which
"Assault Rifles" are used?:
Even if we are talking about
the "new" or "proposed" definition of
"assault rifles", which include 60%
of the semi-automatic guns in
production, there are legitimate uses
in hunting for both long guns (rifles
and shotguns) and handguns.
Semi-automatic shotguns were
originally developed for bird hunting
and semi-automatic rifles today are
used for many types of hunting,
including the taking of big game such
as deer, elk, caribou, moose and
grizzly. Semiautomatic firearms are
also currently used in competitive
shooting, dominating the Service
Rifle Class of national,
international and Olympic shooting.
Using the Department of Defense
definition, it is generally true that
a machinegun would not be commonly
used as a hunting rifle. Placed in
the semi-automatic mode, such a gun
would certainly be capable of taking
game. However, the law does not
allow full automatic guns to be used
in hunting.
What about Conversion to an Automatic
Firearm?:
BATF Deputy Associate Director
Edward D. Conroy in testimony before
Congress said "the AKS (the
semi-automatic version of the AK47)
is difficult to convert [to full
automatic] requiring additional parts
and some machinery..." One police
officer said it could take several
hours even with the parts and
equipment needed to make such a
conversion.
We respectfully withhold the
details of why conversion is not easy
in the interest of public safety .
But even if it were "easy" to convert
a semi-automatic firearm into an
automatic one, the penalty is life in
prison. Only substitution of the
death penalty for life in prison
could provide increased deterrence.
RESTRICTED LICENSES
Background:
On June 11, 1984, the
Massachusetts State Appeals Court
ruled that Licenses to Carry Firearms
can be -- but do not have to be --
"restricted" according to the reason
for issuance shown on the back of the
license. The court further ruled
that the issuing authority might
place restrictions on the reason for
issuance. (See Glen D. Ruggiero v
Police Commissioner of Boston, 1984).
However, the State Appeals Court
admitted the law was vague, and
recommended that the legislature
clarify its intent.
What affect did this ruling have on
licensed gun owners?:
Individual police
interpretation of licenses became a
more exaggerated problem when,
immediately following the 1984
ruling, Middlesex District Attorney
Scott Harshbarger circulated a
memorandum to police urging them to
severely "restrict" licenses.
Most importantly, the court
specifically stated that it was
possible for a person, found to be in
violation of their "reason for
issuance," to be ruled to be in
illegal possession of a gun. The
punishment for illegal carrying under
state law is Bartley-Fox's mandatory
1-5 years in jail. (see the section
on new laws below).
The first persons to be caught
under this ruling were two Wells
Fargo guards in Springfield, who were
arrested in 1985, even though they
held valid (i.e. unexpired) Licenses
to Carry Firearms. In other cases,
persons with valid licenses have
actually been convicted of unlicensed
firearms felonies.
Has the legislature clarified its
intent?:
Yes. As of January 2, 1991, a
person with a License to Carry
Firearms is exempt from the state's
Bartley Fox law. However, during the
more than six years it took for the
legislature to clarify this ruling,
more than one licensed gun owner was
convicted of the illegal carrying of
a firearm.
Are restricted licenses still a
problem?:
Yes. The new law did not
change how licenses are issued, and
thus did not prohibit a police chief
from arbitrarily deciding what the
"reason for issuance" shall be. A
license holder, in possession of a
firearm, could have their license to
carry firearms revoked if the chief
felt they were not carrying in
compliance with the "reason for
issuance."
Since each licensing authority
has his or her own criteria for
license "restrictions," there are no
written definitions of what may be
covered. In some cities and towns,
an individual with a "protection"
license may carry anytime; in other
areas, the license is linked to
employment and limited to regular
business hours.
This can cause serious
problems. Although a licensee could
be carrying in compliance with the
information given him by his or her
own issuing authority, they may be
travelling into another jurisdiction
which has contradictory policies with
regard to what may be allowed under
the "reason for issuance."
Thus, license restrictions
raise a lot of questions. For
example, can a licensed private
investigator carry after business
hours, when he is most vulnerable to
the persons he is investigating? Can
a "target and hunting" licensee stop
on the way home from the gun club to
buy a quart of milk at the store? If
a woman with a "sporting" license
receives threats, does she have to
re-apply for a new license before
carrying the firearm on her person on
a regular basis?
What are examples of "restricted"
licenses?:
Since 1984, some licensing
authorities (usually the police
chief) have adopted a policy of
issuing "restricted" licenses. The
most common phrase is "Restricted to
target and hunting". Some
communities do issue licenses for
"protection" but limit those to "for
employment only".
How are "restricted" licenses
issued?:
Authorities who issue
"restricted" licenses prefer to use
the applicant's means of gainful
employment as the criteria to decide
which license they will be issued.
Of the authorities issuing
"restricted" licenses, many issue
"protection" licenses exclusively to
"special" police officers, security
guards, detectives, investigators,
business proprietors, professional
people or their employees who are
responsible for large sums of money,
payrolls or bank deposits or for the
transportation of very valuable
merchandise."
Applicants who do not meet the
employment criteria, receive licenses
issued for "target and hunting".
Usually the issuing authority
requires them to prove membership in
a bona-fide gun club (average cost of
membership $65.00).
Neither state statute nor case
law mandates that a firearm be
carried in a certain manner
(concealed or unconcealed) regardless
of the reason for issuance. But some
jurisdictions insist they have the
right to impose such restrictions.
What would happen if licenses were
"unrestricted"?:
From the time licensing began,
in 1906, through 1984 all licenses
were unrestricted. During this time,
firearms licensees proved themselves
to be law abiding and responsible.
The Department of Public Safety
states that only an infinitesimally
small number of licensees ever come
into conflict with any law -- from
jaywalking to firearms regulations.
Further, Massachusetts'
firearms accident rate is well below
the national average, and listed last
of all categories of accidental death
in Massachusetts. Thus, there would
be no threat to public safety if all
licenses again became "unrestricted".
Other problems with "restricted"
licenses:
Simple generalized phrases like
"protection" and "target and hunting"
do not indicate what other actions
law abiding gun owners may do. If
the police look only at the exact
wording of the "reason for issuance"
shown, it could cause a lot of
confusion. For example, can a
"protection" licensee practice at a
target range? What about trips to the
gunsmith for repair, or a gun show
for exhibit or appraisal, or to a
friend's house to sell the firearm?
This policy seems extremely unfair.
Is there anything that can be done?:
In some cities and towns,
however, the police chiefs have taken
steps to ensure that citizens are not
entrapped by this court decision by
issuing Licenses to Carry Firearms
with the reason for issuance of "For
All Lawful Purposes."
As a last resort, one always
has the option to sue. The sad fact
is, however, that an uncontested
appeal in District Court costs an
average of $1,500.00, well beyond the
financial reach of most citizens.
HUNTING
Is hunting a safe sport?:
To teach prospective hunters
various aspects of the sport,
Massachusetts offers a free hunter
safety program to all interested
adults, and requires minors who wish
to purchase a hunting license to take
the course.
By law, any hunting-related
accident must be reported to the
state. In a recent letter, Allan L.
McGroary, Director of the Division of
Law Enforcement, stated "State
statistics do not support the
elimination of local hunting based on
the possibility of personal injury."
How is hunting regulated?:
Massachusetts General Laws
place restrictions on where people
may hunt; the Division of Fisheries
and Wildlife places strict controls
on when hunting is allowed. No
endangered species in Massachusetts
are threatened by hunting.
Individuals may post their land
against hunters and target shooters.
Massachusetts General Law prohibits:
trespassing on land with firearms and
the discharge of firearms within 500
feet of a dwelling or within 150 feet
of a state or hard surfaced highway.
What do sportsmen do to help
wildlife?:
As in many other states, any
one who wishes to hunt, fish or trap
in Massachusetts must purchase a
license. The monies from these
licenses goes into a dedicated fund
used solely for the state's wildlife
programs. Therefore, further
restricting, limiting or banning
hunting would deplete the greatest
source of conservation revenue.
The Pittman-Robertson Act
levied a 11% federal tax on the sales
of all rifles, shotguns and
ammunition as well as a 10% federal
tax on handguns. This money is
distributed back to the states,
reimbursing them for a some of the
costs of wildlife, hunter education
and range development programs.
In addition to hunting,
sporting, fishing and trapping
licenses, both federal and state law
require the purchase of a special
duck "stamp". Monies from the sale
of these stamps go directly towards
purchasing and preserving duck
habitat.
The law also requires license
buyers to purchase a special "land
stamp". Monies from these stamps are
placed in a dedicated fund, used to
acquire and preserve valuable
wildlife habitat.
The biggest threat to wildlife
is not hunting, but habitat
destruction. US Fish & Wildlife
Chief John Turner said "The real
tragedy [for wildlife] is pollution,
pesticides, urbanization,
deforestation, hazardous waste, lack
of water and wet land destruction."
What would be the effect if hunting
were to be banned?:
Sportsmen spend $364,695,300.
annually on hunting and fishing
licenses, duck stamps, and related
travel and equipment purchases in
Massachusetts every year. A ban on
hunting would remove the major source
of income (sale of hunting and
sporting licenses), causing a
devastating effect on game and
non-game programs in the state.
TRAPPING
How is trapping regulated in
Massachusetts?:
The Division of Fisheries and
Wildlife oversees trapping
regulations and seasons.
Trapping in Massachusetts is
highly regulated. Each trap has a
"permanently embedded" registration
number. Each individual trap and its
owner, is registered with the state.
By law, traps must be checked every
24 hours.
Where are traps set?:
Traps can only be set under a
building, in a building, or under
water. The building must be on land
owned, leased, or rented by the
trapper. Traps are not set near
playgrounds, and places where
children play. State law prohibits
trapping "in a public way, cart road,
or path commonly used by humans or
domestic animals."
Mr. J. Hibbard Robertson,
Senior Vice President of Woodstream
Corporation, a major trap
manufacturer said "In the almost
fifteen years I have been associated
with the trap business, I do not
recall a single incident where anyone
has approached us and claimed injury
to a child."
Are leghold traps a "vicious" way of
trapping an animal?:
Leghold traps are not "cruel"
and cannot "chop off' an animal's
leg. After being trapped, animals
are often found resting or sleeping
and can be released unharmed if
desired. "A Michigan study
discredits the charge that leghold
traps cause undue suffering or
injury." Other studies have shown
that permanent leg or foot damage to
the fragile boned red and gray foxes
occur in less than 1% of the animals
so trapped.
What is the purpose of trapping?:
Trapping is the most effective
and humane method for controlling
animal populations in densely
populated areas. To quote from the
NY State Department of Environmental
Conservation, "Sound management of
fur bearing animals requires the use
of traps... Sarcoptic mange, canine
distemper, rabies and malnutrition
are generally far less humane."
Leghold traps are recognized,
accepted and endorsed by the
conservation community. Wildlife
experts agree that leghold traps are
an essential and necessary tool in
the proper and wise management of fur
bearers and predators. The Center
for Disease Control has stated it
believes "trapping can help in
managing animal populations to
prevent overpopulation and thus
reduce the potential for disease
outbreaks."
What kinds of animals are trapped?:
No endangered species is
threatened by leghold traps, or any
kind of trapping.
Farmers across the state rely
on trapping to control animals that
damage their crops. Raccoons may
look "cute", but each year they do
extensive crop damage and they can
carry rabies, and roundworm (a
parasite that is dangerous to
humans). Trapping is used to control
the state's raccoon population.
MANDATORY TRAINING AND TESTING
What is Massachusetts' firearms
accident rate?:
The Massachusetts Bureau of
Vital Statistics and Records lists
eight categories of accidental death
from the highest (#1) to the lowest
(#8). Firearms-related accidents are
#8 -- last on the list. The firearms
category includes civilian as well as
police and military accidents. (For
comparison, the firearms accidents
are only 3% of the #1 category --
automobiles.)
Would a mandatory program affect the
accident rate?:
No. Rhode Island instituted a
mandatory training and testing
program in 1980 and spent over
$245,000 of taxpayer's money on the
program in the first five years.
Prior to implementation, Rhode
Island's average annual accidental
death rate associated with firearms
was 2 incidents. This rate has
remained stable over the seven years
of the program, proving this program
has had no effect, beneficial or
adverse, on the accident rate.
From 1975 to 1985, the
Massachusetts population increased by
8%, and the number of licensed gun
owners increased by 35,000-40,000
annually. Total murder by firearms
declined 15% and total firearms
accidental deaths declined 33%.
How would a mandatory training and
testing program be run?:
If the government were mandated
to train and test only 1/3 of
firearms licensees, taxpayers would
have to pay for a new agency the size
of our 45-million-dollar-a-year
Registry of Motor Vehicles. To train
and test all licensees would require
taxpayer funding of an agency triple
the Registry's size.
How much would it cost to create a
mandatory training program?:
According to a member of
National Rifle Association's Range
Development Committee, the least
expensive range to build in order to
accommodate this type of training
would be $75,000 for a 2-4 position
indoor in an already existing
building. Using the above number,
therefore, it would cost the state
approximately $1,188,000 annually,
with no evident of a gain in safety
or a decrease in accident rates.
Has the state legislature voted on
this issue?:
Yes. The legislature has
consistently voted against mandatory
training and testing every time the
issue has come before it. The most
recent vote was 103 to 47 in the 1987
session. However, many police
departments have a "policy" of
requiring License to Carry Firearms
applicants to take, pay for, and pass
a course. It should be noted that
the Greenfield District Court ruled
this "requirement" illegal in 1981.
Is there an alternative program?:
Yes. Massachusetts already has
a voluntary program involving NRA
Certified Instructors contributing
their time, sportsmen's clubs
contributing their facilities, and
GOAL referring citizens to courses
all across the state. To taxpayers,
the entire program costs nothing.
Best of all, this voluntary program
works: Massachusetts' firearms
accident rate is well below the
national average.
Massachusetts General Law
Chapter 269, Section 11 requires the
Secretary of the Commonwealth to
produce posters about the gun laws,
and requires school superintendents
to distribute the poster. However,
this is not done. Adherence to this
law, in conjunction with the
continuation of our voluntary
training and testing program and the
establishment of school "Firearms
Safety Days" (akin to Fire Safety
Days), would further enhance
Massachusetts already outstanding
firearms safety record.
SNUB-NOSED HANDGUNS
What is a "snub-nosed" handgun?:
Used interchangeably with the
terms "snubbie" and "Saturday Night
Special", a "snub-nosed" handgun
usually refers to a firearm with a
barrel length of three inches or
less. All three terms were coined by
organized anti-gun groups and have
been heavily used in the media, but
never by firearms manufacturers. The
term "Chief s Special" is also used
because it is the model name of a
two-inch barrel handgun that is
carried by many police officers.
Are "snubbie's" used for legitimate
sporting purposes?:
Yes. So-called "Snubbie-shoots"
take place at many sportsmen's clubs
all across the state. The average
snubbie is quite accurate up to 3035
yards -- perfectly adequate for many
kinds of target shooting.
Additionally, the FBI reports most
criminal attacks take place within
seven feet, making the snubbie a
valuable self defense tool.
Is the "snub-nosed" handgun the
criminal's choice?:
No. Evidence shows that "the
criminal's choice" is any gun he can
steal or make. An exhaustive,
federally funded study, Under the
Gun: Weapons, Crime and Violence in
America, found that when asked what
they would do if handguns didn't
exist, convicted criminals revealed
they would cut down bigger guns and
make "sawed-off' shotguns -- both
federal offenses -- to use in crimes.
Are "snub-nosed" handguns cheap to
buy?:
No. The following is a list of
the models and retail prices of five
handguns with barrel lengths of three
inches or less: Smith & Wesson Model
36 Chief's Special ($338.00), Smith &
Wesson Model 66 Stainless ($404.00),
Ruger Speed Six Stainless ($320.00),
Ruger Police Service Six (288.00),
and Taurus Model 85 ($223.00).
Clearly, most "snubbie's"
cannot be lawfully purchased at a low
cost. But why should price be a
concern? Under the Gun: Weapons,
Crime and Violence in America, found
no proof that less expensive handguns
are used more frequently in crime
than more expensive ones. Further,
while it is true that higher income
whites with some college education
are those most likely to own
handguns, should guns be priced out
of reach of law-abiding but less
affluent members of society?
In Restricting Handguns: the
Liberal Skeptics Speak Out, author
and civil-rights attorney Don B.
Kates points out that prohibitions
against the sale of "cheap" handguns
originated in the post Civil war
South. At that time, small pistols
selling for 50 or 60 cents became
available to recently emancipated
blacks who, if armed, could have
posed a threat to the racist Southern
establishment. In Public Interest,
author B. Bruce-Briggs states "It is
difficult to escape the conclusion
that the 'Saturday Night Special' is
emphasized because it is ... being
sold to a particular class of
people."
Who owns "snub-nosed" handguns?:
Next to police, the largest
category of lawful "snubbie" owners
is women. "Snubbie's" are the
perfect size for the average-framed
woman, who prefers to carry a firearm
concealed on her person rather than
in a handbag. Because they are easy
to handle and compact in size,
"Snubbie's" are also desirable for
elderly and the handicapped,
especially those confined to
wheelchairs.
PLASTIC GUNS
What are plastic guns and who
manufactures them?:
Despite what you may have read, the
idea that a new breed of plastic guns
has been developed, capable of
bypassing airport security systems,
is a myth. The notion of plastic
guns, or "hijacker" or "terrorist
specials" as they have been called,
was entirely created by the media.
There are no companies that
manufacture guns made entirely of
plastic.
Do any guns have plastic parts?:
Most handguns and all long guns
have had both metallic and non-
metallic parts for many years. There
is no such thing as an all-plastic
gun capable of firing a bullet. The
firearm that's been referred to as
the "plastic gun" is the Glock 17,
which is 83% metal. It is the
standard issue of the Austrian Army.
What do experts say about plastic
guns?:
Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) official Ed Farrar told the
Washington Times "we are not
concerned (about the Glock) ... we
were until we made a test." FAA
Director of Civil Aviation Security
Billie Vincent testified before a
House Subcommittee that the Glock 17
is easily detected by all airport
security systems. He stated that
"... there is no current non-metal
firearm which is not reasonably
detectable by present technology and
methods in use at our airports
today..." The Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) testified
in 1986 that the Glock contains a
sufficient amount of metal to be
detected by standard security
systems. In fact, the BATF approved
the Glock 17's importation into the
United States.
Emanuel Kaphelsohn, President
of Peregrine Corporation, in 1986
testimony, stated that the plastic
gun issue "is a placebo which cannot
be expected to have any significant
effect on crime or terrorism, but
will serve only to divert attention
and energy from more realistic
attempts to improve the security of
our state's airports and public
buildings."
Is there evidence that the Glock 17
can bypass security?:
In 1986, syndicated columnist
Jack Anderson claimed that Pentagon
security expert Noel Koch twice "got
past" security checks at Washington's
National Airport with a dismantled
Glock 17. However, Anderson's column
failed to mention that, at that same
time, FBI agents "got past" the same
airport security checks with several
full-steel firearms, including a
standard issue Colt .45 caliber
handgun and a Beretta 9 mm handgun.
Is there a problem with America's
airport security?:
Yes. In 1985, a CBS "60
Minutes" broadcast placed the blame
for the poor state of airport
security on bad security
administration. They cited human
error, lack of employee training, and
lack of employee background checks.
CBS pointed out that even though
airport security employees are
entrusted with the most crucial role
of airport security, many employees
hold criminal records, are found
inebriated on duty, and experience
great discontent causing a high
turnover rate for these minimum-wage
positions.
Attempts to abolish something
that does not presently exist, only
directs attention away from more
important issues, such as dependable
security systems. We should
concentrate our efforts on the
resolution of our existing problems
rather than chasing non-issues.