From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: The Knee Jerks in MA
Date: 18 Dec 1992 23:44:39 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

12/17/92 Middlesex News

     Moroney's World 
     Tom Moroney
     OPINION

     Double standard, tragic ending

In another stunning example of the stupidity of our gun laws, an 18-year-
old violin student turned his college campus in Great Barrington into the 
OK Corral this week.

Before he was done, a professor and student were dead. Four others were 
injured.

The violinist bought his handy-dandy semiautomatic weapon at a nearby 
gun shop. And he made that deadly purchase in a way that reasonable 
people will find ludicrous and absurd.

He showed his driver's license from Montana -- his home state -- and 
plunked down $300.

The gun was his.

As soon as the ammo arrived by mail, he headed out across the snowy 
campus of Simon's Rock College of Bard and made like Rambo, according to 
police.

Now here's the catch: If a Massachusetts resident wanted to buy the same 
gun in the same gun shop, he or she would have been required to produce 
a state firearms identification card.

This little card is available through local police departments, usually
after a 30-day period and only after the applicant passes muster.

So why, then, is it easier for a visitor to buy a rifle or shotgun than
it is for a resident?  And how did such a bogus double standard occur?

The answer has to do with the Bay State's great tradition of hospitality.

State Sen. Robert Durand, a Marlboro Democrat and avid sportsman, 
provided the details. 

Back in 1991, according to Durand, the state gun laws were amended to 
make it possible for licensed dealers to sell rifles, shotguns and 
ammunition to anyone from the other 49 states, as long as those people 
comply with the laws from their home state. 

As long as you are up to snuff in, say, Montana, you can buy a rifle, 
shotgun or bullets here. 

But being up to snuff in Montana means nothing. Forty-seven states, 
including Montana, have no restrictions on the sale of the merchandise 
described above. 

The idea was to make it more convenient for out-of-staters to hunt here. 
Durand used Boston Celtics star Kevin McHale as an example. 

McHale, who hails from Minnesota, is a duck hunter. In fact, Durand has 
hunted with the future Hall-of-Famer. 

Let's say McHale runs out of bullets. Instead of going all the way back to 
his home state for more ammo, a long run even for a basketball player, 
McHale can walk into a Massachusetts shop and make the purchase. 

Very convenient indeed. 

But how can anyone -- including Durand -- talk about convenience when some 
violinist from Montana goes berserk, aided and abetted, in part, by the 
same 1991 amendment? 

"I don't see that a change in the law will help the situation in Great 
Barrington," Durand said. 

Neither does Richard Gardiner, legal counsel for the National Rifle
Association.  Gardiner thinks Massachusetts certainly has to change its
laws -- but not to make it harder for the out-of-stater to buy guns,
rather to make it easier for the in-stater.

Based in Washington, D.C., Gardiner had heard about the Great Barrington
sniping spree.  "It's a terrible tragedy," he said.

Gardiner doesn't see where more stringent laws will help. 

This is the usual argument you get from the gun crowd: Killers will always 
kill, no matter what the laws are. 

But that just isn't so. For example, what if the Montana sniping suspect had 
been forced to leave the state for his semiautomatic? 

And what if he had found God on his trip, got lost or just never came back? 

Isn't that a little more convenient than keeping a basketball player in 
bullets? 

-------

Editor:

Tom Moroney claims that Massachusetts law is too lax in allowing
non-residents to purchase long guns without special permits.  He glosses
over the fact that the permit requirement would have had absolutely no
effect on the tragedy.

Mr. Lo could have established himself as a state resident simply by
registering to vote at his dormitory address -- no proof required other
than the student's own word.  That done, he could apply for an FID card.
Since he had no criminal or psychiatric history, the state would have
been obliged to issue him one.

What difference would all this rigamarole have made other than to make
t-crossers happy?  Gun laws did not create this problem, nor will they
prevent it in the future.

Moroney asks, "What if the Montana sniping suspect had been forced to
leave the state for his semiautomatic?"  He answers that the shooter
might have "found God, got lost, or just never come back." The quality
of this argument indicates how very little the proposal would actually
ever accomplish.  Or is Tom seriously suggesting that "furriners" are
a significant source of criminal use of firearms in Massachusetts?

Any who assume that our complete safety requires only more and tighter
restrictions on our liberties should ponder New York City, Washington
DC, or Los Angeles.  These areas have the worst shooting statistics in
the country, despite (or possibly due to) having the most restrictive
gun-control laws in the US.  Argue cause and effect as you like, but
then explain why tight gun control is not improving these statistics.

Mr. Lo did break a stringent Massachusetts law just by carrying a
firearm on campus.  But, after all, to a person with such a purpose,
what are laws?

C. D. Tavares
-- 

cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns