Longmeadow residents have the opportunity this week to ban all assault-style weapons and large capacity magazines from their town.
Residents at Town Meeting will vote on 31 articles Tuesday, May 10, including three that deal with gun ownership. The proposed measures haven’t created too much debate in town, says Alex Grant, the selectman who put the articles on the meeting warrant via a citizen’s petition. But they’ve caught the attention of the NRA, which is asking people in the region to protest the measure before such bans catch on in other communities.
The measures up for vote ask three things: 1.) that firearms not be allowed in any building, recreation area, or grounds owned by the town, 2.) that gun owners must provide a description of the firearms they own, including caliber, serial number, and model to the police department when applying to get or renew a license to carry, and 3.) that no assault weapon or large capacity feeding devices, as defined by the state, will be allowed in the town after Sept. 1, 2016. Violation of any of these proposed measures would result in a $300 fine per offense per day.
These all seem reasonable. In Massachusetts, firearms are not allowed in schools, courts, or college campuses — why should community buildings and spaces be any less safe? And while gun owners are required to file paperwork with every gun purchase, that is not an indication of what guns a person owns. Police should have a heads up about how many guns could potentially be in a home they are entering.
But it’s the third measure — the assault weapons and large capacity feeding devices bans — that is the most controversial. Massachusetts already has an assault weapon and large capacity magazine ban in effect, but there’s a grandfather clause in the law. If such an item was manufactured prior to Sept. 13, 1994, when the ban was initiated, the gun owner can keep it. The Longmeadow proposal seeks to close this loophole by ridding the town of the older assault weapons.
Could Longmeadow even do this?
Turns out, yes.
According to Lars Dalseide, a spokesman for the NRA’s legal advocacy team, Massachusetts is one of five states that does not have any “firearm preemptive legislation,” which bars municipalities from making their own gun bylaws.
“By allowing jurisdictions to create their own firearm ordinances, people who practice safe and responsible gun ownership suddenly turn into criminals simply because they drove over a county line,” Dalseide said in a statement to the Advocate. “After all, your constitutional rights shouldn’t be limited by the zip code you live in.”
If Longmeadow does approve the gun ownership measures, Grant says he expects there to be legal challenges, but he thinks the bylaws would prevail. Last year, a federal appeals court upheld a Chicago suburb’s ban on assault weapons saying municipalities have some leeway in deciding how to regulate firearms. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a further appeal. Then again, handgun bans in Chicago-proper and D.C. were ruled unconstitutional by federal courts in 2014, but those bylaws focused on gun sales within city borders.
I don’t understand the need for citizens to own assault-style rifles and high-caypacity cartridges.
I cannot think of a reasonable explanation for why someone needs to own a firearm capable of pumping out 45 to 60 rounds per minute.
Some people argue that an assault weapon legislation at the municipal level is unnecessary in Massachusetts because the statewide ban. Yet, these weapons still exist in the Bay State. In 2013, for the Daily Hampshire Gazette, I conducted an analysis of guns confiscated by six Hampshire County police departments in 2012 and learned that 12 firearms of the same make and model as those used in U.S. mass shootings were among those collected. Despite state law, assault weapons are still in Massachusetts communities. It’s time to close this loophole.
The federal government isn’t going to pass meaningful gun-control laws anytime soon. And for most Massachusetts Legislators the desire for reform seems to be on the back burner for now. Perhaps Longmeadow can show other communities the way to step in and do the job politicians can’t: better protecting people from gun violence.
Contact Kristin Palpini at editor@valleyadvocate.com.
