"We have seen in Bristol County, and I believe this is true throughout Massachusetts, that 95 percent of the gun violence is committed by those who have no lawful right to possess or carry a firearm," Bristol County District Attorney C. Samuel Sutter said.
"That is a powerfully compelling argument for the need for licensing requirements for the possession of firearms."
New Bedford Police Chief Ronald E. Teachman said he was "relieved" with the court's rulings.
"If the SJC had not ruled this way, where would we be? That anyone can have a gun, regardless of criminal background or mental health?" Teachman said.
Yes, Chief Teachman. That's where you'd be: in a State where anyone can obtain a firearm and protect himself and his property. There aren't any restrictions on the 2nd Amendment; it doesn't discriminate. Now, I understand that most of firearm "crimes" are committed by people who don't have a right to possess those firearms, either because they didn't fill out the correct forms or because they don't have the right "background." It's the same argument as drug "crimes." Most people in prison for drug crimes are there for possession, possession with intent, etc. If those offenses were no longer offenses, then people wouldn't be convicted. So, if there were fewer gun restrictions, more people would lawfully possess firearms. I'm sure gun control proponents would be upset by this. But I don't understand why they think that outlawing guns will somehow make crime decrease. All it does is inflate the black market. Has the "War on Drugs" done anything to limit the sale and consumption of illegal drugs? No? It's increased it?
Hat Tip: Free Talk Live