Mass. Lawmaker's Report: Deny Guns to People Arrested - But, Not Convicted

Matt Vespa
By Matt Vespa | February 7, 2014 | 10:18 AM EST

Liberals never lose their entertainment value with their effete policies to curb our Second Amendment rights.  In Massachusetts, a lawmaker's so-called academic panel - liberals just love these folks - suggested 44 ways to tighten the Bay State's already excessively stringent gun regulations, with one that unsurprisingly testing constitutional boundaries: being denying firearms to people who are arrested, but found innocent.

The panel, sanctioned by State House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo, released its report earlier this week.


The panel made 44 recommendations, including that Massachusetts join a national mental health database for screening potential gun owners, that it beef up firearms training requirements, and that it eliminate Class B gun licenses, which are seldom used.

It recommended that the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association help define a series of factors that could be used to prohibit "unsuitable persons" from acquiring firearms. The panel said the current process allows local law enforcement officials too much discretion to determine whether a person is suitable to be granted a license to carry.

It also said Massachusetts should require anyone wanting to purchase a hunting rifle or a shotgun to pass those standards of suitability. That could allow local police chiefs to deny gun purchases to people who have been arrested, but not convicted, of a crime.

Excuse me?  So, an American state is trying to adopt the ominous policy of absolute state control over access to firearms.  You know, I saw a horrifying movie where only the authorities had weapons; it was called Schindler's List.

Yet, I think Charles Cooke at National Review summarized this abject affront to the Second Amendment more eloquently:

In other words, an American state is thinking about denying a constitutional right to the innocent because they happen to have been picked up by authorities that couldn't prove that they had done anything wrong. I hope I speak for everybody here when I say, No, no, and no again. No to the abject hysteria that has slowly grown in small parts of the country; no to the ignorance that is burning like acid through reason and through the law; and no to a cabal of politicians whose disdain for the Second Amendment is so pronounced that they are happy not only to undermine that provision in pursuit of their quixotic goals but to dilute the rest of the American settlement into the bargain. Enough is enough. Where art thou, ACLU?