House Speaker Ronald J. Mariano issued a statement Monday night expressing displeasure with the failure. “We remain disappointed that the Senate delayed our intended review of this gun violence legislation by insisting on its referral to the Public Safety Committee.”
The two branches are expected to pass the bill, which was introduced in June. It would give Massachusetts the dishonor of being the most anti-gun state in the nation.
The impasse came from choosing which committee will hold the public hearing over the bill. The Senate wants proceedings to go through the Public Safety Committee. However, the House chose the Judiciary Committee, which formulated the state response to last year’s U.S. Supreme Court Bruen decision.
Mariano explained that the House preference of the Judiciary Committee is better equipped to face the legal challenges the bill will no doubt face due to the Bruen ruling.
In other words, this unconstitutional 140-page bill will never pass muster by a judiciary intent on upholding the law of the land. And just how onerous is this bill?
As currently constructed, HD 4420 would implement a sweeping ban on so-called “assault weapons.” Unlike other states, the Massachusetts prohibition would cover those already legally owned by private citizens.
This is exactly the egregious overreach gun rights advocates have warned about for years.
The state would ban all federally legally tax-stamped automatic weapons.
Firearms, loaded or unloaded, would be prohibited at all state, county and municipal buildings and all polling locations. Further, the ban would extend to private property unless the owner expressed their consent to weapons being present or if signage was posted to that effect.
New safe storage laws would be enacted, and training requirements expanded to include expensive courses and live fire instruction.
HD 4420 would mandate all guns and feeding devices be registered and all firearm parts have serial numbers. Any modifications or even additions of new parts onto a firearm must be reported to the state.
No one under 21 would be allowed to acquire or carry a semiautomatic rifle or shotgun, and no one under 15 could participate in shooting sports or training. Imagine the effect this will have on families with a strong hunting tradition.
The new law would also establish a mountain of requirements for retailers to undergo training and follow mandates and protocols.
Resistance does exist in Massachusetts against this vast overreach of state control, just likely not enough to derail it. Rep. Nick Boldyga (R) expressed his belief to Fox News that the measure is “the most egregiously and blatantly unconstitutional bill” he had encountered in his 12 years as a state lawmaker.
Gun rights organizations are also taking note. The National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) already issued a travel advisory for the state warning law-abiding gun owners of the dangers presented by Massachusetts. The group expressed satisfaction with the bill’s delay in a statement.
Dudley Brown, president of NAGR, wrote that “the Speaker is right to back down and if he were smart, he would kill the bill altogether.” Brown added that the delay of the bill to later this year only gives forces more time to rally against it.
Massachusetts, despite the delay, has set itself on a collision course with the Constitution. So many facets of this bill are a legal overreach that it is difficult to guess which part will lead to it being struck down.
