Gun violence is a “public health crisis” and “urgent”, but Maskachusetts won’t pass a gun safety law this year

“Mass. Senate’s gun bill won’t bow until 2024, top Dem says” (, October 27, 2023):

The state Senate’s version of a much-anticipated gun violence reduction bill won’t make its debut until January — even as the chamber’s top leader has acknowledged “the true sense of urgency” around the issue.

That’s the word from Senate President Karen Spilka’s, D-Middlesex/Norfolk, office.

“It’s a very complex issue. The House struggled with it, they took their time as well,” Spilka said, according to Politico. “But we recognize the true sense of urgency here.”

The House passed its version of the bill after a marathon debate on Oct. 18, MassLive previously reported.

“Mass. House passes updated gun violence reform bill” (October 18, 2023) is the referenced story:

Since July 1, there have been 90 separate shootings in the Commonwealth, which have left 40 people dead and 86 injured, Day said.

“We are in the midst of a public health crisis and it is unrelenting,” he said. “‘Thoughts and prayers’ are not enough.”

The revised measure makes slight modifications to where people can carry firearms, expands the state’s assault weapons ban to include firearms developed after 2004, and aims to stem the flow of illegal firearms.

The bill also includes language that prohibits someone from bringing a gun into schools or government buildings and polling locations.

A major focus of the bill is also cracking down on “ghost guns” or untraceable firearms, by registering them with the state. As ghost guns are becoming more common Day said he hopes that serializing these firearms will help police trace where they are coming from and who’s putting them out on the street.

The updated legislation requires receivers – the part of the gun that contains the firing mechanism – to be serialized, but not the barrels or feeding device.

The House bill has been met with praise from gun safety advocates and lawmakers who’ve been pushing for the Legislature to act on Day’s bill since it was first proposed.

(It didn’t meet with praise from a gun enthusiast friend who still lives in Massachusetts. “I can possess normal magazines and ARs but won’t be able to carry magazines over 10 rounds. And they have to be stored at home both in a safe and also unloaded. And I will no longer be able to pick up my kids at school with a gun.” (I didn’t ask who needs to be shot in the pick-up line.))

So… politicians agree that we are in a crisis and there is urgency. It’s a one-party state so there is no political opposition to whatever Democrats might agree to do. People are dying and this new law will prevent those deaths. But there is no need for the Senate to act, e.g., simply approving the language already passed by the House, so that the new law can take effect.

And from the southeast part of the state…

And in the west-central part…

5 thoughts on “Gun violence is a “public health crisis” and “urgent”, but Maskachusetts won’t pass a gun safety law this year

  1. I know a person who is looking to leave MA due to this proposed law, despite interesting work and friendly workplace and loving MA weather and nature. He went an extra mile to compile with already very restrictive MA gun laws, one of the most restrictive in the USA, but sees no bounds to them.
    Violence is a problem and making law-abiding people not able to protect themselves or further infringe on their pursuit of happiness just increases level of violence.

    • Anon: I think the long-term trend in the U.S. will be to eliminate the right of private gun ownership, which is inconsistent with open borders. If you have a high-trust nation of citizens, you can have guns of all kinds in private hands. By contrast, suppose that you assemble a collection of humans with nothing in common other than they didn’t like where they used to live (this is by design; people get U.S. residency/citizenship now because they claim “asylum” from bad things happening in their home country, not because there is something about the U.S. that they like or some U.S. value system that they share). Then the only way to keep these people under control is by turning them into subjects rather than citizens. It is not practical to allow subjects of a powerful multi-ethnic state to have guns (see China, for example. or the Soviet Union).


      “In America, interpersonal trust is in catastrophic decline. In 2014, according to the General Social Survey conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago, only 30.3 percent of Americans agreed that “most people can be trusted,” the lowest number the survey has recorded since it started asking the question in 1972. Today, a majority of Americans say they don’t trust other people when they first meet them.”

      If you don’t trust your fellow citizens/residents, you definitely don’t want them to be armed. (I guess the flip side, however, is that if they can’t be disarmed then you need to arm yourself. Maybe this is why so many people are buying AR-15s today whereas they didn’t want them before. I know some women who bought guns during the 2020 lockdowns, for example, who had never talked about wanting a gun prior to 2020.)

    • Look at

      He claims asylum in the US saying that he is unsafe in Jordan, not that he likes anything about the US. Then he decides that he wants to kill some Jews (an important cultural value where he is from), so he buys a 9mm piston and trains with heavier armament. As long as millions of people like Sohaib Abuayyash can come to the U.S., there can’t be a right to own guns. And, with open borders, there is no practical obstacle to millions more just like Mr. Abuayyash.

    • philip, seems you are making some assumptions that may not be true.
      You assume that America has omnipotent competent government altruistically working in best interests of the world driven by idealism and not by held believes, politics/power struggle of the moment, public corruption and group interests,. This is idealistic but not true. Especially idea that government can protect anyone when it is afraid protect itself from medieval crowd seems ridiculous. Have government protected you or anyone you know when you/they were attacked?
      Another your assumption, that prior mass immigration US was a country of brotherly love is not collaborated by historic evidence. US was born in civil war of Independence, had rebellions, fought Civil War between states followed by wild west. Did Lincoln naively felt close to Booth?
      Third, it may sounds simplistic, but US will be done without civic liberties civilian firearms ownership. US is projecting power in the world and that keeps its position in the world strong and currency reliable. As we can read from recent events, technology is not everything no matter how much us computer geeks want to idolize it. Competent worrier population substrata is essential and for that fighting ethos and significant civilian firearm ownership is a necessary condition. As a matter of fact, US even not ratifying UN cynical child rights convention, US indeed needs to train teenagers for war.
      I can write more about civic liberties and their importance for US economy but I am sure you can do it more eloquently.
      Will there be a reason for anyone ambitious enough or sober enough to stay in US which will have larger population density, fewer civil liberties ad be much poorer? Maybe yes maybe no. No on the long run.
      Seems that even lost cause MA is back-pedaling on most strict gun control attempts, which would of course be a failure as usual.
      Forget your oracle function, what do you personally think about firearm ownership?

    • Philip, regarding . I agree that open border is the issue and folks like that terrorist may be let in to justify tightening the screws. But don’t you think that is way more dangerous to have people like mr. Abuayyash and disarmed population? Mr. Abuayyash would have less problem obtaining weapons illegally the his targets obtaining protection legally, I do not think that he would be stopped by legal firearm non-availability if his final goal was murder.
      As a matter of fact Arab extended family clans in ME have little problems arming themselves with automatic weapons if if they are legally not available in their host countries. Why do you think it would be different in US if population changes to more reflect ME population? Would not be legal civilian forearms ownership still be advantageous for law abiding citizens if such group survives as a specie?

Comments are closed.