Gun Owners Action League Blasts DeLeo Proposal

Firearm group plans on going through gun control legislation “with a fine-toothed comb.”

Gun Owners Action League. Courtesy
Gun Owners Action League. Courtesy

One of the state’s largest gun owner organizations is taking shots at a new gun control proposal forwarded by Speaker of the House Robert DeLeo, D-Winthrop, calling it “a disappointment.”

In a short statement on May 27, Jim Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners Action League, said the organization was looking for something that it could support, “from the get go,” adding that the group would be analyzing the proposal in the days to come.

ALSO READ: DeLeo Announces Comprehensive Gun Violence Legislation

“It was very apparent at the press conference with who was standing at the podium and who wasn’t just how this bill was going to be drafted,” he said in a statement.

Wallace was most disturbed, however, by language that expands the suitability requirement of firearms identification cards, especially surrounding “good reason” requirements to apply for access to weapons, suggesting that the expansion proposal might be a violation of the Constitution.

“To expand these requirements is unconscionable,” he noted, “and a possible constitutional violation that likely will not withstand scrutiny.”

Wallace added though that there were some aspects of the bill the group could support, especially around mental health language and reporting to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, so long as it was drafted correctly. 

“We will be going over this bill with a fine-toothed comb over the next 24 hours,” Wallace stated.

The proposal, “An Act Relative to the Reduction of Gun Violence,” hopes to address the gun violence issue by focusing on mental health, violence prevention, increased oversight, and addressing systemic problems already within the state’s numerous gun laws.

David Heafey May 31, 2014 at 12:23 PM
Folks, there are some very good provisions in this bill but it is, by no means, fully baked; half baked is more like it. As an example, there are many 60-70 year olds who had minor misdemeanor convictions protesting the Vietnam war, who, beyond that arrest have perfect criminal records. All of these people will now either lose their LTC/FID or will be prohibited should Speaker DeLeo's new "gun violence" bill pass. Whether you are for or against gun rights, it is important to read and understand the implications of this bill.
Wing Nutt May 31, 2014 at 01:04 PM
As a gun owner, I can honestly say the pro gun folks and the NRA have devolved into a fever swamp of kneejerk reaction against any revisions to gun policy. This was not always so. I remember an NRA that supported reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. They have stopped being relevant to reasonable discourse on the matter. This was proven in the wake of Sandy Hook, with their campaign against any action that led toward prevention of such tragedies. Their standard line is "this won't work", and it's hauled out at any opportunity. I value my right to own a gun, but I have dealt with people who do own guns and should not. With the power of the NRA, I despair there's no hope to change this.
Steven Sadowski June 02, 2014 at 04:25 PM
Wing: What do you think of the NRA's latest stance regarding concealed and carry? They're taking a lot of heat for it. Care to revisit your comments?
Wayne Bruce June 03, 2014 at 08:34 AM
Steven, this is one of the few recent times the NRA leadership has actually listened to its membership. In three large polls stretching back two years (Pew Research Foundation, Repub. pollster Frank Luntz, and Johns Hopkins), more than 75 percent of NRA members (!) have supported provisions such as expanded background checks, despite the loud opposition by NRA leadership. The yahoos open carrying at Chipotle and at kids' tee ball games are the worst kind of PR for the NRA and a goldmine for gun control groups...and the NRA knows it.
Steven Sadowski June 03, 2014 at 11:36 AM
Wayne: The problem with polls is that they measure the "what," but not the "how." For example, if you took a Socialist, a Democrat, a Republican and a Libertarian and asked them, "Do you think we need to do something about ending homelessness?" You'll get 4 "yes," answers. But then when you ask, "How would you end homelessness?," that's when you'll have divergence. I have no problem with tough background checks, or enhanced licensing requirements. I just turned in my application to renew my class A and you'll be happy to know I'm not a felon and I'm even a step 9 driver! And if I had to re-qualify, or even if I had to take my 3 hour course again, I'd be OK with that. They make you do the eye chart when you get your driver's license, so...But it's when we get into "how" are we going to keep the insane from getting guns, or "how" do we share info. and tighten the requirements, that's when you're going to get arguments and all of a sudden that 75% gets split. Lastly, those idiots at Chili's were neither insane nor criminals, they were just young and stupid. You can legislate against stupid. If we could Obama and Warren wouldn't have been elected : )


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 »