GloucesterTimes.com, Gloucester, MA

January 19, 2013

Letter: Lawmakers should reject gun law changes


Gloucester Daily Times

---- — To the editor:

This is a copy of a letter I have sent to our state legislative representatives:

I am writing to let you know I am opposed to the legislation filed by our governor regarding gun control.

The state of Massachusetts already has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation. As a legal and responsible gun owner, I can’t help but feel I and others are being punished for the acts of those who have no respect for the law or the lives of others.

What we really need is criminal control. Time after time we read and hear of convicted felons, using guns to commit violent crimes, even after being convicted of multiple felonies, yet they still walk our streets and continue to prey on good citizens.

Commerce and trade are the foundations to a thriving and prosperous people. Limiting the sale of guns to one per month really is a pointless attempt to restrict free trade. After all, most of us can only afford to have so many firearms in our possession and if we choose to purchase them at one time that right should be unencumbered not restricted due to the acts of criminals or those with mental health problems.

Yes, we have a problem with mental health issues regarding firearms. And that problem is always going to exist regardless of all the rules and regulations printed on official documents of the state and federal government. A clever and determined person, with mental health issues, who is determined to do harm will always find a way to carry out acts of pure evil. And when this happens it seems the emphasis is to further restrict the rights and privileges of law abiding citizens who had no part of the wrong doing.

Thousands of people in this state enjoy going to an indoor or outdoor range and punching holes in paper targets, myself included. Some shoot handguns and some rifles. Why is an AR15 or similar firearm in the hands of a military person called a combat rifle, in the hands of a police officer called a patrol rifle, but in the hands of a civilian called an assault weapon? Seems the civilian term is a sinister indication of intent to assault. Same gun, different description.

We already have a limit on magazines to 10 rounds with the exception of those who have a permit for large capacity and only if the magazine meets certain requirements. Further restrictions to seven rounds makes absolutely no sense, as it does not make the gun any less lethal in the hands of a criminal but further restricts a legally licensed gun owner.

The gun issue is never ever going to go away. There will always be guns and those who own them legally and illegally.

Let us craft laws based on common sense and safety for the owners and the public at large. To rush to the chambers of Beacon Hill and pass legislation based on the passion of those who are enraged by current events is a disservice to legal gun owners, and an attempt to appease those who do not like or understand them.

LEW WILKIE

Rockport