Mass. Gov. Blames "Gun Lobby" for Slowing 1-Gun-a-Month Bill
Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D) is blaming "the gun lobby" for the growing opposition to his one-gun-a-month bill in the state legislature.
Governor Patrick can blame whomever he likes, but the facts speak for themselves.
Limiting the sale of firearms to law-abiding citizens is premised on the false belief that doing so reduces illegal firearms trafficking. There is no evidence to support such a claim.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the significant drop in crime that began in the mid-1990's coincided with more guns being in private possession and more restrictive gun laws being taken off the books.
In South Carolina, one-gun-a-month was repealed (allowing for more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens) and, like the rest of the U.S., South Carolinians continue to experience a decrease in violent crime. This decrease was particularly noticeable last year when sales of firearms reached unprecedented levels.
So Gov. Patrick, we ask you to remember that the Second Amendment is a constitutional right, not a privilege. Rationing this freedom should be unacceptable to all Americans, including governors.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
None of the US Department of Justice, CDC, nor the National Academy of Science has been able to identify any (ANY!) gun control law which can be shown to reduce any (ANY!) of murder , violent crime , suicides nor accidents.
This includes laws such as purchase limits, waiting periods, and even 'obviously sensible' laws such as Brady/NICS background check for firearm purchases are included -- they cannot be shown to work and are in fact not even enforced ON CRIMINALS.
Less than 100 criminals are prosecuted each year for Brady/NICS violations -- and the vast majority of these are because the authorities needed to arrest or prosecute a criminal but can't make the real charge stick, or as a "predicate felony" for a conspiracy or RICO charge.
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0406/final.pdf
Clearly a law that cannot be shown to work, and which is only enforced on the law -abiding is an egregious infringement of freedom .
That is just COMMON SENSE, right?
If you believe backround checks are what it takes to determine who is good enough to own a gun, why would you, at the same time, think that they are suspicious enough to limit the number they buy?
Either they're criminals or they're not. Being from Mass, I doubt you ever thought of limiting how much alcohol someone buys because we have a problem with drunk driving or under aged drinking ..
I don't follow anyone, because those that appear to be on the same path usually end up just getting in my way.