Linsky Files Gun Violence Legislation

The bill looks to close loopholes in existing state laws, require mental health background checks, strengthen gun storage requirements and require liability insurance for gun owners.

The following is a press release sent by the office of state Rep. David Linsky, D-Natick.

State Rep. David P. Linsky announced today that he has filed “An Act to Reduce Gun Violence and to Protect the Citizens of the Commonwealth,” comprehensive gun violence prevention legislation aimed at closing loopholes in existing state laws,  requiring mental health background checks, strengthening gun storage requirements, and requiring liability insurance for gun owners.

“This bill is a comprehensive effort to reduce all types of gun violence – murders, intentional shootings, accidental shootings and suicides.  There is not one solution to reducing gun violence – we can’t eliminate it – but there are a lot of common-sense steps that we can take to significantly reduce the everyday tragedy of gun violence and deaths,” said Linsky.

Following a series of tragedies, Linsky invited members of the House and Senate to discuss how gun violence could be reduced in the Commonwealth. Over 150 members and staff attended the meeting, representing a wide array of viewpoints including gun owners, former members of the military, nurses, parents, hunters, and former teachers.  

“I have spoken with hundreds of people over the past few weeks in developing this legislation – victims, police officers, criminologists, physicians, and yes - gun owners and sportsmen,” stated Linsky. “There are a lot of good ideas out there. We should all have one goal – reducing gun violence and trying to keep more tragedies from happening.”

Provisions in the bill include:

·         Having one standard of the issuance of all gun licenses, giving local police chiefs the ability to evaluate all aspects of an application for a gun license.

·         Requires proof of liability insurance for possession of a firearm, rifle or shotgun.

·         Requires that all large capacity weapons and grandfathered assault weapons must be stored at gun clubs or target ranges.

·         Requires live shooting as part of the curriculum for a basic firearms safety course; this is not a current requirement.

·         Requires all applicants for gun licenses and FID cards to sign a waiver of mental health records for review to be destroyed after decision.

·         Imposes 25% sales tax on ammunition, firearms, shotguns, and rifles; dedicates funds towards firearms licensing, police training, mental health services, and victim’s services.

·         Brings Massachusetts into compliance with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

·         Limits gun buyers to one firearm purchase per month. 

“Every day in America, 83 people are killed by gun violence.  Many are children. We need to stop this madness. All of the data shows that you are many more times likely to shoot yourself or someone in your family than you will ever use a gun in self-defense,” further commented Linsky. “It is time for the American people to tell their Legislators that the NRA and the gun manufacturers do not speak for them – even most gun owners believe that we need tighter restrictions on gun ownership. The overwhelming majority of Americans want these measures enacted.”

Linsky served as Chairman of House Committee on Post Audit and Oversight during the 2011-2012 legislative session, and was an Assistant District in Middlesex County for 14 years prior to becoming a State Representative. Since first being elected to the House in 1999 he has been an advocate for effective gun violence prevention and gun safety laws.  He represents Natick, Millis and Sherborn in the House.

Tenzin Rob Lowery Gyaltsen January 26, 2013 at 07:29 PM
Ktg and other grabbers- I took your advice and I tried to get my guns to go off. I yelled at them. I called them nasty words. I even had my German Shepard bark at them and guess what happened? NOTHING! You are more likely to get hit by lightning then to be shot. You can "what if" all night and every night". It is all part of life. If you don't want to die in an accident then stay in your home. But that doesn't work either because you are more likely to fall in a shower and die. So what next, have a tax on taking a shower? Or maybe we should require a doctors note before you take a shower to make sure you don't have weak knees? Or maybe require you have extra shower fall insurance because I don't want to pay for your fall in a shower. Get the idea? Well we all do, this is nothing to do with keeping kids save. This has everything to do you passing the UN Small arms treaty. Read up on this, it has everything to do with making 90% of all guns against the law so the USA can sign on to this treaty. Well, we are not going to let this happen. Even if they do make it law, at least 2/3'a of gun owners will not turn in their guns. What now? Are u going to let out the killers to make room for us?
wendy pc January 27, 2013 at 02:37 PM
Michael Barrett January 27, 2013 at 03:37 PM
The NY time? Oh brother. Why don't you just post press releases from the Brady campaign. Your struggling, really struggling. Hey Wendy, since Ktg refuses to answer simple questions, Do you want to give it a go? Now answer these questions. What is a "assault weapon" ? What makes an "assault weapon" different from another rifle? What size should gun magazines be?
Michael Barrett January 28, 2013 at 03:07 AM
Still waiting Wendy, step up to the plate. Answer the following. What is a "assault weapon" ? What makes an "assault weapon" different from another rifle? What is the point of banning "assault weapons"?
Ktg January 28, 2013 at 07:54 PM
Thanks everyone listening to your opinions has been pretty interesting but I haven't changed my mind about gun control and other legislative measures to help curb gun violence in America. You may think me a victim of the modern media but I still have nightmares about newtown and other mass shootings. I especially think about that poor 5 year old who watched their friend get blown away in a bloody mess only to face the gun themselves. i guess at least they only had a second to think about it since the guns that are available can kill so many so quickly. I'm a mom and I think about my kids, I start at home when it comes to violence. I don't own a gun, I don't purchase toy guns for my children (they are too young anyway) and I certainly don't let them watch any violent tv programs (jake and the neverland pirates is the most scary thing seen at my house). I'm hoping there are more like minded people like me than the majority of the people in this forum. We need to start looking inward in america, why is america so much more violent than other civilized countries? we have to start somewhere and gun control is the beginning. http://sandiegofreepress.org/2013/01/some-factual-gun-statistics-part-2-of-a-cultural-comparison-gun-violence-in-the-us-and-europe/
Michael Barrett January 28, 2013 at 08:58 PM
ktg - Look, if you want "gun control" why do not refuse to answer these simple questions. If you want these measures, explain why, etc. Answer the following. What is a "assault weapon" ? What makes an "assault weapon" different from another rifle? What is the point of banning "assault weapons"?
Michael Barrett January 28, 2013 at 09:45 PM
Do not compare gun violence in the US, or violence in general in the US vs. european countries. That is comparing apples and oranges. You are comparing very different societies and wondering why there are different numbers. They are different because they are different societies. Why don't you look at uk gun crime with their gun ban. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-154307/Gun-crime-soars-35.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html And other crime in the UK is raising rapidly too such as robberies. The criminals know people (law abiding) do not have firearms so they are running wild. The violent crime in Australia has also risen significantly since they outlawed legal firearms. Criminals are law breakers by definition. They do not follow the law so any gun laws are just making it easier for them to find victims. "...since the guns that are available can kill so many so quickly." A basic pistol which have been around for over 100 years can kill just as quickly as a so called "assault" weapon. The basic functions of firearms have not changed in a VERY long time. Do you feel safe right now? There are over 1 million guns in MA legally owned, over 300 million nationwide. There is very little for gun laws in VT and plenty of legal gun owners. They have very few gun crimes. The issue is violence, not guns.
Michael Barrett January 28, 2013 at 09:48 PM
Not to burst your bubble but there not as much gun control people as you think. Linsky's little gun control pow wow drew less than 200 Saturday in Boston at the statehouse. The firearms and knives show in Marlboro had probably 2000 on Saturday alone. Sunday was smaller but still a large number. It's a bit cold now but when the weather warms up, you are welcome to go target shooting with me. I'll show you some firearms, you can understand them and see how benign they are.
Bob Canning January 28, 2013 at 11:57 PM
Ktg, by becoming a parent you are obliged to defend your children. What is your plan of action in the event of a home invasion? You have three choices, beg for your life, try praying that the(most likely repeat offender felons) criminals don't hurt you or your children much or you could have a plan to fight back. Recently a home invasion in Loganville,GA ended when the invader sought out the mother and her twin 9 year olds who were hiding in a crawl space(what on earth did this invading criminal want with a woman who clearly relinquished turf to him by hiding and yielding there entire house to three criminals robbing desires?) the mother shot the criminal, thus saving her family. I feel this event would have ended horribly were she unarmed. Like the previous poster, I offer my instructor services to you and your husband. Please consider experiencing the comfort and knowledge that self determination and education can bring. The ONLY equalizing factor between you and a criminal, is equality of force. A cell phone(if you can dial while being assaulted or running), and a 5 minute wait for man with a gun is a poor alternative. Please Ktg, refuse to be a victim. I sincerely hope to help.
Michael Barrett January 29, 2013 at 01:03 AM
Ktg - On the line that Bob is talking about. What would you do if someone broke into your home to rape or murder you? Call 911? Ask the police what will happen if you call as the person is getting into your home. They will be there in 5 minutes at the very least, probably more towards 10. Look at the clock right now and watch it for 5 minutes. People think 5 minutes is nothing. When your life is on the line, it's an eternity. Police rarely stop crime, especially a rape or murder. They investigate and stop future crime but they do not prevent the first. The police will be very honest, they cannot save you if someone is there as you call 911. You'd be dead or abused. This happened two weeks ago in Georgia. Without a firearm, the woman and her two children may very well be dead. Also, she shot 6 times, hitting him 5. That is why magazine capacity limits are crazy. If there were 2 or 3 intruders, what do you do? Ask them for time while you reload? http://www.therightscoop.com/shes-shooting-him-911-tapes-released-of-georgia-mother-who-shot-home-intruder/
Ktg January 29, 2013 at 05:02 AM
I'll never own a gun if someone ever invaded my home I'd barricade my family in a room and call the police provided I had enough time. Even if you have a gun you'll need the same reaction time in order to react. I will never ever own a gun. I know plenty of people who go through their whole lives without needing one. I think owing a gun is unsafe and there are more gun owners who hurt or kill a family member than an intruder
Ktg January 29, 2013 at 05:06 AM
For every story you find about someone protecting themselves I can find more saying father accidentally kills son , child gets hold of gun shots brother. Son kills mom and sister etc.
Ktg January 29, 2013 at 05:14 AM
I don't think that gun control rally was advertised I didn't know about it. A gun show I'm sure was widely advertised gun selling is big business. Plus you have people thinking their guns are going to be taken away. Then you have others who just want to buy a military assault high capacity gun before they are banned. Why anyone would want one is incomprehensible to me. Protection from our govt? Please give me a break. Hunting? Yea right try a bow and arrow at least it's a challenge. You think I've been suduced by the media. Well I think gun owners have been seduced by the NRA and gun manufacturers. I've seen some of their ads and it's sad and frankly pathetic.
Bob Canning January 29, 2013 at 10:18 AM
Ktg, thank you for at least listening, I appreciate that. I wish you well in the endeavors of your life and I hope you never have to barricade yourself anywhere, although I would suggest that you go to the barricade practice range at least practice barricading, for your family's own safety, that isn't something you'll want to be learning in a moment of need. Statistically, famliy's with firearms are safer than non-owner familys. Comparably, Chicago, Ill., with it's TOTAL gun ban, has the highest death rate in the country, more than Afghanistan. Total bans do not work, just as "gun free" zones don't work. They simply and immediately tell predators, "You'll encounter NO resistance here." Bow hunting should be a choice, just as say...yoga. Let's ban yoga because I believe that lifting weights is more effective and is more of a challenge. Dictating to ME, by YOUR choices isn't what freedom is about, if you don't want a gun, don't buy one, if you don't want a Corvette, don't buy one, do you see my "choice" position? This issue is about control, and Our Bill of Rights, it's certainly NOT about choice...where is Mr. Linsky's legislation making it harder and more painful to be a criminal? It's non-existant.
Bob Canning January 29, 2013 at 10:20 AM
Cont'd: The innocent, firearms owning fellow Americans are being punished for the actions of the few deranged individuals. Should we judge all mothers by the actions of Honey boo's "parent." Maybe next will come legislation to take YOUR car away, because someone in Pittsfield got popped for a DUI last night, thereby making ALL cars capable of DUI like behavior. Blaming the object and not the individual is the wrong approach. I have read that all of the most recent shooters were either registered Democrats, Atheists or from family's that had registered Democrats/Atheists within the home AND were all heavily medicated...should we consider banning THEM next? Also, there are 33 colleges, 3 of which are here in MA, within the USA that offer scholarships for kids who sportshoot, I see that as a benefit.
Michael Barrett January 29, 2013 at 05:45 PM
The gun control pow wow was publicized, including on tv, newspapers, facebook, twitter, etc. They are extreme and thus in the minority. "Plus you have people thinking their guns are going to be taken away. Then you have others who just want to buy a military assault high capacity gun before they are banned." There will be no ban, the so called "assault weapons" are going no where. There is not even a simple majority in the Democrat controlled US senate. The top D senator, Harry Reid voted against the ban in '93 and is against it now. Other D's are against it as well. It was in place from '94 to '04 and did ZERO to reduce any gun crime, that is why there was no push to continue it. Columbine happened in '98, other shootings happened over that time, etc. Gun deaths have been going down for decades and the number is lower today than in '04 when the ban expired. The Va tech shooter killed 34 adults, wounded 17 with a Walther P22 (it's not a powerful handgun, it's a .22 cal bullet) and a 9mm Glock (a mid powered handgun) He only used 10 and 15 round magazines. Takes 2 seconds literally to change a magazine. And there are 30 million plus large magazines in the country now.
Michael Barrett January 29, 2013 at 06:39 PM
Ktg - "Then you have others who just want to buy a military assault high capacity gun before they are banned." First there are no civilian owned "military" guns. Military rifles are automatic, there is a ban on those since 1986 and 1934. You'll hear the gun grabbers say military "style", the key word being style. They are black and look like an M16, but they do not function the same way at all. I don't think you've been seduced by the media, I think you simply do not have much knowledge about firearms, which you probably agree. The media knows less than you probably as they screw up terms all the time. So called "assault weapons" are used in 0.6% of murders. They simply are not a choice of a murder. They look scary though, so politician play on the public who do not know the subject but see a black scary looking rifle. "Why anyone would want one is incomprehensible to me. Protection from our govt? Please give me a break. Hunting? Yea right try a bow and arrow at least it's a challenge." The most common black rifle you see on the news is an AR 15 platform. There are 3 million in the country and they are used for hunting. The round they fire is a .223 cal. The bullet is very small and cannot not be used for hunting in MA or most other states for Deer, moose, bear, etc. as the round to too small. It is illegal and you can be arrested, have your gun seized or fined for doing so.
Michael Barrett January 29, 2013 at 06:39 PM
Con't You seem to think the AR 15 is either automatic or a very powerful gun. It is not. Rifles for deer hunting, moose, etc. and shotguns are much more powerful. Bow and arrow? Yeah, try to take down a moose with an arrow, or a turkey, etc. The reason you cannot use an AR 15 .223 for deer, moose, etc. in many states is the animal will not die quickly. Instead of a quick humane death, the animal will suffer over time, maybe die weeks later of an infection. And the 2nd amendment was not about hunting. If you did not hunt in the 1700's, you did not eat. There were no supermarkets, everyone hunted. The 2nd amendment was written because the British tried to take peoples firearms back then and disarm the public. The 2nd amendment is a protection against tyranny. This is not questioned by anyone.
Michael Barrett January 29, 2013 at 06:47 PM
Watch this, it shows the AR 15 platform rifle, a few handguns and more powerful hunting rifles. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaZEvb3PWNQ And with lowering the capacity on magazines? Pointless. First there are literally 30 or 40 million of the higher capacity magazine out there already. Say you banned them and did a forced buy back. A criminal could import them very easily. But they could also make one in their garage. It is a little bit of sheet metal and a spring. Nothing else. It does not stop a killer either by having a smaller magazine. Watch how quickly this woman changes her magazine and she isn't even trying to go fast. It takes 2 seconds. Magazines are cheap so a mass killer could easily buy dozens and not be affected by a 10 round limit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEOZuuD86x8
Michael Barrett January 29, 2013 at 06:59 PM
Ktg - The NRA is about 5 millions members right now. They pay to join. There are over 70 million gun owners. People believe in the 2nd, they own firearms for their reasons, not the NRA. If guns are dangerous why are there 100 million more guns than 15 years ago but gun deaths are down? The numbers do not support the gun control groups lies. The statistic say gun ownership has nothing to do with gun deaths. Would you like to meet for coffee and either Bob or I could explain the facts? And the offer to go shooting is there. I think you would learn a lot and dispel these fears that you have. Would you be afraid to stand is a group of on duty police or military, all armed? No, right. Because the gun in their possession is harmless without the bad intentions. But would you feel safe in a room with Charles Manson unarmed, nothing. No. He's a nut and a killer. You are not gong to keep guns from criminal with gun laws, you only disarm the public. What do you think an "assault weapon" is? Bob nor I will attack you. We just want to see what you think it is then we can politely reply.
Bob Canning January 30, 2013 at 02:15 AM
82 Year Old Shoots Intruder 01/29/13 KFVS12 News From Gateway Pundit: Every day we hear stories like this. A home owner protects his property from a violent intruder. An 82 year-old Missouri man shot a violent intruder who broke into his home Friday night. Unfortunately, our national media does not believe this is a major story. It doesn’t fit their liberal narrative. KFVS: Police say an 82-year-old Ellsinore man shot a man who reportedly broke into his home Friday night. It happened shortly after 7:30 p.m. on North Herren Street. According to Carter County Sheriff Richard Stephens, Charles L. White, 30, of Ellsinore, broke into the residence and assaulted the 82-year-old. White reported fled after being shot. After the sheriff’s office obtained a search warrant, White was found at a home in Ellsinore. The 82-year-old homeowner was taken to a Poplar Bluff hospital and then by air ambulance to a St. Louis hospital with head injuries.
Bob Canning January 30, 2013 at 02:19 AM
How important was a gun to this gentleman? Re-read the story and substitute "newly introduced anti-gun legislation", in the places where this man defended his life and tell me how much criminals care about the laws...
Michael Barrett January 31, 2013 at 02:24 AM
Hey Ktg, http://reason.com/blog/2013/01/30/52-percent-of-americans-say-sandy-hook-i Democrats, who normally count on the youth vote, may be surprised to find that 70 percent of 18-24 year-olds and 58 percent of 25-34 year-olds say “assault weapons should be allowed.” Similarly, Republicans, who usually rely upon the senior vote, will find that 57 percent of 55-64 year-olds and 61 percent of people over the age of 65 say assault weapons should be prohibited. Gun control is a movement of old white people.
Michael Barrett January 31, 2013 at 02:28 AM
Ktg, read this. http://washingtonexaminer.com/gun-control-fails-rationality-test/article/2519971 Gun control is going no where except mental health. The proposals Linsky wants are equally unconstitutional.
Brett February 01, 2013 at 09:22 PM
Ben, How are these "common-sense" regulations going to have ANY effect on firearms violence? Requires proof of liability insurance for possession of a firearm, rifle or shotgun. - This is illegal unless somebody changes the 2nd amendment. A constitutional right to keep and bear arms is NOT an insurable action. Requires that all large capacity weapons and grandfathered assault weapons must be stored at gun clubs or target ranges. - Explain the logistics here? Gun clubs are in no way prepared for the mass storage of weapons in such a manner, let alone the liability it places on them. Requires all applicants for gun licenses and FID cards to sign a waiver of mental health records for review to be destroyed after decision. - A HUGE violation of HIPAA and would prevent some people (i.e. veterans) from seeking needed assistance for fear they would be denied or have their LTC revoked. Imposes 25% sales tax on ammunition, firearms, shotguns, and rifles; dedicates funds towards firearms licensing, police training, mental health services, and victim’s services. - 25% sales tax on a constitutional right? Really? Where is the logic here - so that we penalize responsible gun owners for the actions of criminals? Limits gun buyers to one firearm purchase per month. - Would have ZERO bearing on crime or Mass Shootings. Explain how, based on facts, this would have an impact? In fact, do you have any valid input based on actual facts about prevention of violence?
Bob Canning February 02, 2013 at 01:46 AM
Mr. Linksy is a representative, he is supposed to represent support for our rights, not to legislate against them. I am still waiting for someone to make it harder to be a criminal, not harder to be a law abiding citizen. I respect your choice not to own a firearm(voluntary helplessness is a choice), respect my choice and given(naturally, not governmentally), right to own one.
Michael Barrett February 02, 2013 at 05:03 AM
Bob, Linsky follows the Democrat belief system. They know what you need better than you. See they are the enlightened and everyone else is not worthy. Pretty comical, the stuff coming from Linksy and his mediocre mind. The average MA state rep is weak minded. Linksy deams to be average.
Bob Canning February 02, 2013 at 09:37 PM
Amazingly, not a single proposal making it more difficult to be a criminal has been introduced, waiting...
Chad Brower February 21, 2013 at 01:42 PM
Not only is this legislation useless and cowardly because it only targets legal firearms owners it also unfairly targets the poor. If they require for insurance then make that insurance prohibitively expensive it would make it impossible for the law abiding lower income families to afford. Is that your intention Mr Linsky? To target the poor so they can't buy firearms legally?
Private Snowball February 28, 2013 at 02:55 AM
I assume illegals will still be free to carry as they don't have to follow any laws. i would also assume Linsky and his liberal buddies will give them guns for free so they can protect against the evil tax paying Americans. Linsky is the problem with Massachusetts.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »