Massachusetts has some of the toughest gun control laws in the country. They're not quite equal with California on that, but they're also not far off, either. These are measures that proponents claim will keep guns out of the wrong hands.
Despite that, though, a man with a history of violent felonies and mental illness got an AR-style rifle and shot at passing motorists. How?
Seriously, that's got to be the big question for everyone. How did such a person not just get a gun, but the kind of gun that is so heavily restricted in a state like Massachusetts in the first place?
Well, it seems no one has a freaking clue.
Brown, 46, of Dorchester, is on dual parole and probation for a host of violent offenses, including armed assault to murder. His criminal history means it was illegal for Brown to possess any gun whatsoever, never mind the multi-caliber BCI-Defense Model FF-15 authorities allege he used in the shooting, according to court documents.
“The state and federal laws are straightforward: if you have a felony conviction, you cannot legally purchase, possess, or carry a firearm,” said Elisabeth Ryan, the Boston-based policy counsel at Everytown for Gun Safety, in a statement. “This individual should never have had access to a gun.”
George W. Vien, a former federal prosecutor, concurred, saying that federal law prohibits someone with a felony conviction from possessing any firearm or ammunition, regardless of the style of gun.
“It’s really clear cut,” he said.
Additionally, Massachusetts law prohibits sale and possession of assault weapons, such as a Colt AR-15 or an AK-47. The law also bans weapons that have internal functional components that “are substantially similar to the construction or configuration of a weapon that is expressly banned under the law.” But there are exceptions, including grandfathering clauses.
Massachusetts law bars specific military-style weapons and their duplicates and any semiautomatic weapons with at least two identifying features — such as a folding or telescoping stock, a bayonet mount, a grenade launcher, or an ammunition magazine that attaches to a pistol.
Of course, the piece goes on to try to argue that so-called gun violence in Massachusetts is impacted by states with "weaker" gun laws, thus laying the groundwork to blame this on some state that doesn't see the right to keep and bear arms as some kind of a roadblock.
The truth of the matter is that, as a convicted felon, he couldn't buy a gun lawfully anywhere in the country. His so-called assault weapon was prohibited in Massachusetts, and he still had it and used it. This was someone who just got out of a mental hospital three days prior, and somehow managed to get a prohibited gun from an illicit source in one of the most gun-controlled states in the country.
It's funny how often anti-gunners claim these laws work, but when they don't, it's someone else's fault for not having the same law on the books.
The truth is that it's never the tool, it's the tool using it that's the problem, and this particular tool should probably have remained in the mental ward for a while longer.
Still, how did Brown get the gun? From someone who broke the law in any of a few different ways. I'm sorry, but that's always going to be a thing, and no amount of gun laws is going to stop criminals from being criminals.
But gun laws might well prevent armed citizens from being able to step up, as an armed citizen did in this case, to help take Brown down, and prevent future tragedies.
Just sayin'.
