So you are proposing selling Girl-scout cookies type of fundraising to make sure our kids in school are safe! How much does it cost to enact that by-law? Its only on assault weapons. Why are you against it?

[Part I]
Kaio,

It's really very simple. The town of Westford is prohibited from making their own firearm laws through preemption by the State. What that means to any city or town in Massachusetts is that if they do pass such an ordinance they violate the State law and the ordinance cannot become law until approved by the State Legislature and signed by the Governor. In the meantime such law would be un-enforceable.

If, Westford or any city or town were to attempt such passage and enforcement of such an ordinance, they would be subjecting themselves to needless spending on the publics part to defend the inevitable resulting lawsuits that would result brought by your fellow citizens who might actually already legally possess such firearms for either collection or legal personal use.

[Part II]

I would call everyone else's attention to the definitions of such in MGL Chapter 140 Sec 121. While there is great disagreement in America and Massachusetts in general over what an 'Assault Weapon' actually is (media term, fully automatic, and the like) and what 'Large Capacity' is, fortunately or unfortunately this is the current definition and even those with a Class A License are subject to these definitions.

Thus, under existing laws already on the books, no one is allowed to posses an 'Assault Weapon' as defined, unless it was manufactured before 9/13/1994. Given the current definition there are fewer and fewer of these in MA every year.

I view such an ordinance as counter productive in an attempt to grab headlines for political gain (or lose as the case may be) and an issue that should be remanded to the State Legislature instead by filing the proper requests through your State representatives.

[Part III]

In plain English then, rather than the Selectmen breaking existing State law in an attempt to take away the existing legal rights of their citizens; setting a very poor example by ignoring existing law themselves; they should like their law-abiding firearms owner act within the law and the required legislative process.

Are we a republic of laws for all or are we not?

Ron, while you make several valid and substantive points, you miss one important one: it's already within the jurisdiction of the Chief of Police to determine which class of firearms license is issued. If the Chief stopped issuing Class A or B licences tomorrow, and only issued FIDs for new licenses and renewals, then in six years the town could reach the goal of "no assault weapons" without passing any new laws.

That's not a position I support, but I just want to make folks aware that it exists. I'm fine with existing limits on large-cap mags but eliminating all semi-auto firearms is a legislative reach.

Mike,

I understand your fear, but there are many other barriers to the Chief of Police acting in this manner and I believe your fear to be unfounded. Your licensing authority cannot arbitrarily stop issuing Class A permits. While the State of Massachusetts is not a 'Shall Issue" state like many others and is a 'may issue' state the CoP would have to show that everyone who applied and was denied was unsuitable under MGL.

A very unlikely set of circumstances as those that had applied would appeal and through the appeal process would win and then be so inclined to vote out all the Selectmen who would have a say in firing said 'CoP'.

Don't laugh. It's happened a few times in MA already in Quincy for example. The lawful firearms owners banded together to out a tyrannical CoP and it can and will happen again.

I would also point out the too numerous Police violations of the law and departmental feuds that spill over into the media that should make anyone think twice about forfeiting their own protection to someone else.

Ron, the Chief doesn't have to show proof that the applicants were unsuitable under MGL because aside from the obvious characteristics (convicted felon, mentally incompetent, habitual drunkard, etc.) there's no definition of unsuitable -- just the minimum suitable qualification of having taken the Basic Safety Course. It's purely jurisdictional.

A denial can be appealed to the District Court, which will consider the Chief's reasons for restricting permits. In nearly every appeal I'm aware of, the DC has sided with the local licensing authority.

Belmont, Lowell, Newton and Carlisle, among others, rarely issue Class A. http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/general-discussion/8703-guide-gun-rights-your-massachusetts-town.html

Mike,

Let's just agree to disagree on this point. I don't think this is relevant to the issue at hand and I doubt you want add fuel to the fire around this discussion in a public forum where our conversation could be construed or misinterpreted as a means of illegally disarming people.

Mike,

What I will say is that this notion as defined in H.R. 4296 of 1994 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/103/hr4296/text that Chapter 140, Section 121 refers to should be null and void since this law expired and would suggest you help to repeal this at the State level.

I would go further in stating that given the 2008 Heller Supreme Court decision and the "in common use" statement that these can and should no longer be considered 'high capacity' and thus are 'standard capacity', so we need to highlight these particular issues instead.

Ron, it's actually very relevant because the authority already exists for the town to do what some selectmen want to do legislatively. Jefferies' was trying to make a point with his proposal, but judging by the video of the proceedings, I don't think he or the other BoS members actually know much about the existing legislation, nevermind what's already being proposed at the state level. (Eliminate private sales, 7-round mag limit, etc.)

I've written this before, but I'm completely fine with the town requiring additional training for anyone seeking a Class A LTC. Jefferies made a suggestion about reviving the town militia that seemed partially in jest but he actually stumbled into a decent point: having your armed citizens adequately trained and responsible -- well-regulated! -- is vastly better than having an untrained armed rabble.

If the people or person who was proposing this law was being totally honest then he would also be discussing what it would take to implement it - and what that would cost the town.

A good comparison to this proposed law could be made to the current state of the drug laws in this country. For a law to be "just" and not just an arbitrary ranting of whomever is in charge at any particular time - there has got to be at least some logic behind the law. The "logic" behind the drug laws are that narcotics and other mind enhancing drugs - destroy people's lives and affect society at large. Agree with the laws or not - that is what I believe the underlying logic of those laws are.

In order for this anti "assault weapon" law to be just - I believe there must be some logic behind it. It seems that Mr. Jeffries believes that by eliminating those firearms from the town - a school shooting may potentially be avoided.

So here's the thing - if that is the underlying logic of this law - then in order for the law to not be a joke or just some sort of feel good measure that nobody pays attention to - then the a logical set of steps must follow from that law.

Firstly all of the lawfully owned firearms that meet that classification must be eliminated from the town. This could be done voluntary or involuntarily. The state of MA requires an FA-10 form to be filed for all firearms purchased or transferred. I believe the police have access to that information.

Those records - are held by the Criminal History Services Board. It is known among people that have experience with this system - that it is messed up and the records are not complete.

So - what that means is that you cannot rely on those records to find out who everybody is and what all the firearms are that exist in town.

That is point 1.

Point 2 is that the current MA licensing system allows a person - including any person who lives in Westford - to go out and buy any MA legal firearm that meets the license level they posess. What this means is that if a person has an LTC Class A they are licensed by the state of MA to concealed carry (if they have not been restricted when the license was issued) , they can purchase handguns with removeable magazines - and they can purchase "high capacity" rifles - which means those that take removable magazines. The Class A license allows the possessor to purchas what would likely be seen by the Westford law as "assault weapons". So - the Westford Police would have to stop issuing those licenses to ANY Westford resident - because if they did not - then Westford assault weapon ban or not - a person could just go buy one in any gun store in MA - OR ANY CONTINGENT STATE - and bring that firearm back into Westford. Without revoking all Class A licenses - this law would have no teeth.

So Westford residents would have to be restricted by the Police Chief to class B licenses - which means revolvers and rifles no removable magazine. That means anybody in the town of Westford who has a semi-automatic pistol - or a hunting rifle with a removeable magazine - would lose the level of license that allows them to own that - and those firearms also would be effectively banned from the town. It also means any body with a permit to carry concealed - would no longer be able to do that. Many women have concealed carry permits because of abusive ex - husbands, boyfriends, whatever. People have carry permits because they work in dangerous areas or because they have a dangerous profession - like jewelry store owner or armored truck driver.

In order for this law to have real teeth - that licensing can no longer be issued by Westford - so all of those types of people can kiss their own ability to self defend goodbye.

The next thing that must happen - is house to house searches. I can tell you for an absolute fact that there are people all over the state of MA that are unlicensed - and in the possesion of firearms. They may have had a license years ago and let it lapse, may have moved here from another state, may not even know they are supposed to be licensed. The reason is irrelevant - these people exist - and they own firearms - and you don't have any record that they have them.

Some of the weapons that are classified as "assault weapons" - are decades old. The M1 carbine - which is a WW2 era rifle - has been readily available to civilians for decades. Many vets from WW2 , Korea, Vietnam - even Desert STorm and Iraq - and Afghanistan - have brought weapons home with them from their overseas duty. Stories about people finding "bring backs" up in their attic show up with regularity in the news. Recently in CT a woman turned in a Stg44 - which IS an assault weapon - German , from WW2. And they were full automatic. It was in her attic or something like that. I have heard stories like this for decades.

Why bring this up? Because this is point number 3. If the logic of this law is that "assault weapons" must be eliminated from the town in order to avoid a school shooting - you MUST GET ALL OF THEM. And what I am saying is this - unless you literally do a house to house search - you will never get all of them. They are sitting up in attics, sitting in basements , etc. Some kid someday will be up in in his grandmother's attic - find the M1 carbine that his grandfather left up there 2 decades ago - hidden in the rafters, take that rifle - and start shooting up his school. Right? I mean isn't that what this proposed law presumes? The the literal existence of "assault weapons" in town - will lead to a shooting? So you must search and confiscate ALL of them.

The last point I would like to make is: there can be no exclusions. The law MUST apply to police and fire and town employees and federal employees - EVERYBODY.

If the underlying premise and logic of the law is that the weapons must literally be eliminated from town to avoid the shooting - then that MUST include ALL people. Who knows when some police officers kid might kill his father - and take his weapons - like Adam Lanza did in CT? The firearms must simply not exist in the town.

I hope the people who are proposing this law - and who are contemplating passing it - have fully thought this out. I hope the peopel of Westford who will have this law inflicted upon them - will be in full possession of the facts of what the implications are of this law when it goes thru.

But somehow I doubt that.

Jim, it's actually nowhere near as convoluted as you make it. There are no confiscations needed. No bureaucratic nightmare scenarios. No jackbooted thugs coming under cover of darkness to seize your beloved boomsticks.

By restricting new licences and renewals to FIDs -- a jurisdictional power the chief ALREADY HOLDS and a power ALREADY IN EFFECT in other cities and towns -- the town could criminalize possession of large-capacity long guns for residents. The entire process would take six years from whatever arbitrary date the town chose

Simple.

Allow exceptions for those who absolutely need CCW, or who have a demonstrated proficiency. Done and done.

Your right to bear isn't infringed, as the Heller decision has said there's no absolute right to carry whatever you want wherever you want.

Mike,

So the town is ok with the possibility of a school shooting in the intervening six years?

I think you are missing my point. If the underlying premise of the law is that the "assault weapons" are directly responsible for school shootings - then they MUST be eliminated - in as quick a fashion - and as thoroughly as humanly possible. Otherwise you're just not getting the job done.

Is the town willing to get sued by some parent - because they have an ordnance that protects their children by eliminating assault weapons from the town - yet their kid gets killed by somebody who possesses one and is Westford resident - who is unlicensed - and shows up on no records as even having possession of that weapon - when the town KNEW what it would take to fully enforce the law?

I don't think you're getting it. This is directly comparable to the drug laws - where we send police into people's homes, track down dealers, throw possessors of drugs into jail for decades - all on the premise that drugs are a scourge on society and must thoroughly be eliminated.

Unless the law has teeth - and the town itself is willing to carry the law to that extent - then it's a joke. Because I can tell you with absolute certainty that people will disobey the law - and they will actually be able to do it LEGALLY - outside of the town of Westford.

Jim, if there's no liability for gun manufacturers and gun owners for weapons used in murders, there's not going to be a liability suit against the town for NOT enacting this. That dog won't hunt.

I think there's nearly universal agreement that BoS's response to the Newtown shooting is predictably knee-jerk and reactionary, with little thought to the process, or to the legislation being proposed at the state level. As written, it's an empty gesture without much hope of passing.

That said....if the town took other means to do it, i.e. restricting to FID, it could. While I understand your point about the town needing to confiscate weapons to eliminate lawsuits, that position isn't supported by recent history. Where were the widespread confiscations of weapons or magazines after the '94 ban? Answer: they never happened.

I and many others would be more than willing to bear arms on behalf of my community to protect the people in that community from criminals and tyrants. But you don't need to know who will be stepping up on your behalf until the time comes that somebody has to defend the defenseless. What a lot of people fail to understand about the 2nd amendment is that it was included in our Constitution so that citizens will have the means to once again rise up and break away from tyranny when our government (federal, state and LOCAL) becomes so oppressive that they infringe on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Jefferies demonstration of his ignorance of our natural rights wants to locate and identify all gun owners in Westford. That is the first step towards tyranny. Finding and neutralizing anybody who may resist a tyrannical agenda.

As for defending one's self, family and home, when seconds count, the police are minutes away. The police are completely incapable of providing any kind of protection against criminals. All they are allowed to do is investigate crimes that have been allowed to happen through the disarmament of the citizens of their town.

RIch, I agree in the main with for first statement, but your swipe at the police was a bit beyond the pale. To say that "police are completely incapable of providing any kind of a protection against criminals" shows you don't understand the major role of a police department: deterring crimes from being committed. You can't count how many crimes are prevented by patrols through town. Those don't show up on lists of statistics.

Mike, The deterrent that police provide is the fact that they are armed (so why not citizens?) and that they just might be around at the time the perp wants to commit the crime. They are constitutionally prohibited from taking preemptive action against someone who they suspect of having criminal intent. The person has to actually commit a crime for the police to get involved. Of course, if the perp spouts off about his criminal intentions, it is considered threatening and that in itself is a crime and the police can intervene. But all of the criminal investigations having to do with violent crimes, past, present and future, are the result of the police not being able to proactively provide protection to the victim. The number of those investigations far exceeds the number of incidents where the police happened to be in the right place at the right time. The only way any citizen can enjoy protection in real time (rather than police protection, condolences and investigations after the fact) is if the citizen has the tool necessary to neutralize the criminal.
So, I disagree and stand by my original statement. The police are incapable of crime prevention. They may talk a good game and advise people to lock their doors and call that crime prevention. But the reality is that they are just as helpless as an unarmed victim in preventing crimes from happening.

Rich, the deterrent police provide is that they're armed, TRAINED first-responders, not some some random person with a gun who's more likely to put half a magazine into the wall than into the bad guy.

And you're, way, way off on your statement about police not being able to take preemptive action against someone they suspect of having criminal intent. It's called a Terry stop. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop

Oh. A Terry stop. I should have known there would be some tool in the box that LOEs can use to detain a person for no more than a suspicion. I don't know how that passed 4th amendment muster but it does go to another issue surrounding the 2nd amendment. That being the ability to defend oneself from a tyrannical government.

You are paranoid Rich! Westford crime is 1/33rd of the national average and is the best among our neighboring towns too. The ban is ONLY for assault weapons. This is not the "Wild West" where everyone needs to carry a gun.

Kaio, can you define what an assault weapon is??? I'm guessing not, but I'll wait. Also, perhaps you're not listening but the proposed ban is for high capacity magazines which, by the way, are already banned in MA.

Call me paranoid if you like but come back when your opinion has some basis in fact or at least know what we're talking about on a local level.

Should have said the proposed local ordinance is to ban high capacity magazines too. Assault weapons and high capacity weapons are already banned in MA. Jefferies, and apparently you too, want to make it illegal to own even the weapons our already over bearing state government grandfathered in. Jefferies and people of your mindset are the greatest danger to our freedoms. Even if you are too afraid to learn how to use gun, for now, at least there are people around you who are willing to hold the tyrants at bay no matter what the cost.

What about my rights to send my kids to school, the mall or the movie theater without fear of them being shot? In all the gun control conversations, I have yet to hear of one legitimate use of an assault weapon aside from law enforcement & military purposes.

Parker Village Resident, in 2011, 72 percent of all gun homicides were committed with handguns. Assault weapons accounted for just under 2 percent of gun homicides.

Which should we actually be concerned about: the gun that can be hidden or the scary black rifles?

Until the NRA allows unrestricted government research on gun violence, all statistics are up for debate.

Parker Village, I believe you're referring to the multiple Harvard studies that were suppressed for years due to NRA pressure on Congress. That kind of interference with legitimate research is part of why I don't suport the NRA, which I believe has likely harmed society as much as the good it claims to have done in supporting gun rights.

However, the stats I quoted are derived from actual numbers taken directly from the Uniform Crime Reports compiled by the FBI: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011

What about the mandatory one year jail sentence for handgun crimes ? How many criminals were sent to jail for breaking that law? It is useless to pass [ feel good ]laws and not enforce them . We need to enforce the laws on the books, and not create more laws .

Both are DOA (#8 and 2.5 override) save the bits!

They talked about things other than the goals, so don't you worry, Vincent.

An AK47 is not ownable by the general population - it requires a special federal license and there are a bunch of hoops that must be jumped thru to get the special license - You cannot walk into a gun store or walmart and buy such a weapon. If you want to ban things, you should do your homework and understand what you are trying to ban - The national liberal movement is to ban semi auto fire rifles - rifles that would never be used in a military assault situation as they can't be used as machine guns . Unfortunately the national hysteria is to ban assault weapons but no one has bothered to explain the difference - the rifle used in Conn. was not an assault weapon - it was a semi auto rifle which requires a pull on the trigger to shoot each round - its only connection to an assault weapon is its cosmetics not its mechanics. Semi auto rifles are used for many types of hunting and the cosmetics are less important then the accuracy to hit the hunted animal.

You're going to arm your militia with bolt action rifles and six shot revolvers to defend Westford from criminals with semi-auto rifles?

Alan, your is a bit deceptive. Any number of AK variants are Mass legal, including a couple of Romanian WASR-10 models with pre-ban 30-round mags that were at Four Seasons until just after the sales rush started. (It's still listed on the "New Long Guns" page.) Since they're semi-auto, you absolutely can walk into a gun store and buy one.

Is it the same AK -47 as the type used by the world's bad guys? No, but the lack of selective fire is a ridiculously small distinction, especially since the rifle was designed to have semi-auto as the default combat setting.

I say this as someone who likes shooting semi-auto rifles. Let's not cloud the issue with false distinctions

Alan, just as a clarification, we don't care! If the gun can spew more than 10 bullets in a minute, it is an assault weapon according to me and THAT type of weapon needs to be banned.

If that's your argument, for what reason would one possess an military-style assault weapon? If not for "hunting", I'm sure you'll say "self defense", which is still a ridiculous reason to own an assault rifle.

Interestingly enough, Phil, one does not have to have any reason at all except they enjoy shooting them. And, that's reason enough and, frankly, none of anyone's business.

Pistol magazines with capacities of 15-17 rounds are by far the most common chosen for both self defense and police use. Self defense use of them has been limited by the fact that new ones are already banned in Massachusetts. There have been many documented cases of criminals being shot multiple times and continuing their attack. Add the possibility of more than one criminal working together, and the usefulness of standard 15-17 round capacity magazines instead of those arbitrarily limited to 10 rounds or some other number becomes obvious.

There have been multiple documented cases of homeowners using their AR-15 rifles in self defense. Here's just the first one I found in a quick search: http://www.khou.com/news/crime/Burglary-suspect-shot-by-15-year-old-son-of-deputy-97430719.html

AR-15s and other rifles often targeted by 'Assault Weapons Bans' are not functionally any different from any other semi-automatic rifle. For those who don't know, semi-automatic simply means that one shot is fired each time the trigger is pulled. Fully automatic machine guns are extremely heavily regulated since 1934 and new ones have been banned since 1986.

For those saying this will 'stave off violence', can you explain how? Connecticut already has an assault weapon ban. Making the question even simpler, can you define what an assault weapon is?

There are no bands of criminals or such persistently dangerous individuals in Westford that they need to be shot on site. And more directly to your concern these non-existent criminals didn't get way because someone ran out of bullets or couldn't fire rapidly enough.There is an inherent naivety to both our positions, but it is far more promising Westford that chooses to ban these extra lethal weapons than the one where people are armed to the teeth in apprehension.
As to your last question assault weapons can be defined by the rapidity with which rounds are fired and the ease of converting the weapon into an automatic. And finally, all of you that are concerned with the efficient use of time and effort by the elected public officials might consider that they do handle all the business of the town with volunteered time. And that you too can volunteer your time.

Maybe the started paying town council, town manager, ... after you left?

Last time I checked, criminals didn't limit their activities to only the town in which they reside. No one is advocating shooting anyone 'on site'(sic). Use of deadly force in self defense is legal when the assailant has the ability, opportunity, and intent to inflict death or serious bodily harm.

If you're right that no one will commit serious crime in Westford, what harm is done by possession of any weapon?

If you want to ban guns based on how quickly they can be fired, you need to ban all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, and all handguns. Any of these fire one shot each time the trigger is pressed. The rate of fire is determined by how quickly you can pull the trigger, nothing else.

Guns that are easily converted to full auto, such as those that fire from an open bolt are already legally treated as full autos. Converting a typical semi-auto in to a full auto is not a trivial matter. Even if it were, doing so is a federal felony with a 10 year minimum sentence.

"And finally, all of you that are concerned with the efficient use of time and effort by the elected public officials might consider that they do handle all the business of the town with volunteered time. And that you too can volunteer your time."
And nothing they do ever affects them personnally huh? Open your eyes

Talk about speaking loosely of "freedom and rights"! When did you become an authority what is an appropriate use of other peoples time? This is exactly why we have a constitution and a bill of rights - so busybodies don't try to force other people through the power of the state to comply with their ideals. Your beliefs on what is realistic or appropriate do not factor in to the equation.

Do you think the chance of using a firearm in self/home defense is an unrealistically low possibility, but the chance of a school shooting or mass murder in Westford is a realistically high probability? I'm sure you can name every "mass-shooting" that has happened recently by name/location - that is because in reality they are very rare and few/far between. Look up data on any other violent crime, burglaries etc (FBI has very good statistics for these) - these sorts of things happen daily, if not more. People all across the country use guns, including rifles to defend themselves daily. You don't hear about it because its not a special event.

Violent crime has been on a steady decline in this country for decades across the board. This includes "mass-murders". The fact of the matter is: you are much more likely to need to defend yourself or your home/family than you are of being some victim of a "mass-murder".

"For the public good" is the same tired argument used in every single instance of swindling the rights and property away from the very same "public". Sacrificing individual liberties for a perceived "public good" is the hallmark of all of the worst types of government throughout history.

I, for one, never speak loosely about freedom or rights. They are clearly delineated for all to read- take a look at the Bill of Rights from 1791 or even the 14th amendment and you may learn something. There is limited flexibility within these rights, which ultimately can only be decided by one political body: the Supreme Court. Ultimately the Supreme Court and all political bodies have established a social contract with the people. The government has agreed in this contract to abide by the Bill of Rights and all other Constitutional rights. You nor anyone else can predict the future, so please do not tell me what I need or do not need. That is for my family and I to decide.

I wish some of these little people in high places would step back and let the rest of us decide what we need or don't need. People should be allowed to use whatever weapon they are comfortable with for any alwful purposes.

There's a whole bunch of people out there - including your very own Federal government - who say that you are just plain wrong about that - that weapon bans "stave off violence" that is.

John Lott report about more restrictive firearms laws in response to school violence - Found that they are actually counter-productive:

http://www.thevrwc.org/JohnLott.pdf

The CDC (Center for Disease Control) - did a study where they were actually trying to prove that restrictive gun laws had a positive benefit - and they could not:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

In 2005 the National Academy of Sciences published a 238 page report that examined 253 journal articles, 99 books, and 43 government publications - and found that no link could be established between restrictive laws - and violence.

National Academy of Sciences, Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review,

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309091241

I found the summary of Lott's research regarding violent crime trends provided in the above linked article to be very intriguing. Here is some more violent crime data that may interest others:

http://m.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline

re: lead levels and crime: Correlation does not prove causation.

Rich, I fully support the Second Amendment, am quite comfortable around various types of firearms, and love shooting sports. Until the prize craze, I was looking for an AR in .308 for hunting...but those are about as rare as hen's teeth now.

All that said, I have absolutely ZERO problem with any proposal to require firearm registration, especially if that data is part of a national database that collects and cross-checks info about assaults, restraining orders, and mental illness. My only issue with the selectman's proposal is that it's penny ante stakes. A Westford-only registry is pointless; this needs to be national.

First, we live a republican representative democracy (not direct) or we would not have reps like Jeffries to contend with. Second, I believe we are the greatest, most free country in the world. It gives us the right and ability to converse freely on topics like this. We clearly do not live in a dictatorship by any stretch, but any democracy can become one. In reference to the aforementioned quotes, do you know that Hitler was actually elected democratically? Can you not find a relevant lesson there for future generations? Finally, why should our town have to build a "safe community" without a certain type of firearm (whatever that may be) that has existed here for years with no inherent problems. We are already safe, while protecting our individual rights and liberties. Seems like the best of both worlds to me, a true balance between liberty and safety. My advice: just stay in whatever town you are in now.

If you would rather live in a town that would impose its opinion and will on citizens who are minding their business and doing nothing wrong, please move elsewhere. I do not want to be subjected to your "feel-good" rules and ordinances that do nothing more than limit the freedoms and rights of law abiding people.

There is nothing melodramatic about it at all. It is very simple - proposals like this, that go against the constitution and which are formed on the basis of what some group of people thinks is appropriate for another group of people is authoritarian. That doesn't mean I think Westford will instantly transform in to tyrannical dystopia... but, it is what it is... and it is authoritarian in every sense.

And guess what: Direct democracy is just tyranny of the majority. That why we have a republic and constitution with a bill of rights - so the minority will have their rights protected from the whims of the majority or another vocal minority.

If you have qualms about living in any town for any reason, then the appropriate thing to do is get to know the community and see if it fits with your ideals. You can talk to individuals and try to change their minds, but it is wholly inappropriate to try to legislate an area in to what you want it to be. Doing so demonstrates a fundamental lack of respect for the rights and privacy of your neighbors.

I wholeheartedly agree! We need more people to run for office, let's get some new people into the Selectmen's race, and support them! Toss 'em all out!

Hey Derek,

Just for future notice, no swearing or abbreviations of swears. Kids read our site.

Guessing no harm was intended, just wanted to give you a heads up.

Sorry Dan, but both you and Rich are extremely wrong. The amount of "training" is negligible for an FID. A four-hour classroom session isn't trainign; it's a slow morning spent indoors. There's ZERO actual live fire training required at all for an LTC or FID, meaning it's possible for someone to go through the licensing process and never have to fire a weapon. That's ridiculous. Since a Mass. LTC allows concealed carry, some of the folks exercising their Second Amendment rights likely have minimal -- or no -- experience in firearms handling. These are not the people I'd want anywhere near me if there's even the slightest chance of all those wacky paranoid scenarios coming true.

At the very least, anyone who gets an LTC should be required to have several hours of live fire training but that's a state issue. As a "will issue" state granting authority to local LEO, it's well within the Chief's jurisdiction to restrict some untrained folks to an FID. (Actually, I already hope that is happening.)

And Derek's proposal about mandatory FID training as a licensing or renewal requirement is spot on. Gun control advocates like to portray all gun owners as irresponsible untrained yahoos; this is a great way to quash that argument.

Mike, you may be right on the firing issue. I was basing it on the course I went through several years ago that included live fire training.

Mike, the type of under pressure fire exercises you mention requires mental and physical conditioning that your average FID carrying gun toting citizen has not been through. However, just because LEOs are exposed to that kind of training at the academy, doesn't mean that a few years out they are any more capable of using his weapon than the average citizen. You talk about an untrained citizen firing his entire magazine into a wall when under pressure but what about those NY cops who recently shot multiple rounds at a shooter from about point blank range missing most but eventually killing him and hitting innocent bystanders in the process. Then there is the Westford LEO I sometimes see sitting in his cruiser, which he causes to list heavily to port, in front of the Silver Palette with a pizza sitting on the dashboard steaming up the windshield who would be incapable of giving any kind of a foot chase and still have the composure, control and stamina to fire his weapon accurately under pressure. Most of the concerns you mention about untrained citizens have been demonstrated by the very people we are supposed to trust our security to. As I said before, when seconds count the police are minutes away. When they are at the right place at the right time, there is no better odds of them stopping a crime in progress than an armed citizen protecting his home and family. Perhaps the armed citizen would do better because he actually has skin in the game.

Rich, the live fire training I'm talking only about involves pulling a trigger, which isn't required to get an FID or LTC in Massachusetts. You can take a 4-hour class that covers gun safety, state rules, proper storage and transport, but not actually fire a weapon -- and still receive a license. That's not raising my comfort level as I pull into a Market Basket parking lot.

Rich, that NYC incident you describe actually shows how difficult it is even for trained LEO to react and respond to an immediate threat. Your statement that they "shot multiple rounds at a shooter from about point blank range missing most" is just wrong. The point-blank range bit is pretty accurate. On a crowded Manhattan street, the two officers shot a total of 16 times, hitting the murder suspect 10 times. Nine people were wounded by bullet fragments or ricochets. Six of the nine were treated and released. Keep in mind that this happened during rush hour and in front of the Empire State Building -- one of the city's busiest tourist spots.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/25/nypd-shooting-bystander-victims-hit-by-police-gunfire/

Do you think that an untrained and scared John Q. Public would have done any better?

I can't comment about your ongoing beef with Westford PD, except to say I've always found them to be extremely professional and diligent in the 12 years I've lived here.

"Do you think that an untrained and scared John Q. Public would have done any better?"

You assume John Q Public will be scared. Not everybody runs from a fight. Some will march right into it for the right reasons. People wishing to carry concealed are usually the type who would do the latter. And to answer your question (sort of) I don't think John Q Public would have done any worse than the NYC police who fired 16 rounds to stop one man. From that range, 16 shots should have resulted in 16 hits and all 16 of those hits should have been lethal hits considering the high level of training these guys get and their proximity to the criminal they were trying to stop. To have supposedly trained police officers perform so poorly and send six rounds into the general public doesn't raise my comfort level either. Perhaps if NYC allowed private citizens to carry, there would have been less lead flying around crowded streets and the perp would have been neutralized sooner. Hard to tell when only well pensioned government officials are allowed to carry a weapon.

Again, Rich, you're missing the point and assuming far too much if you think that the simple act of carrying a firearm is a substitute for training. Your comment suggests that instead of two armed and trained LEO eliminating a threat, the public would have been better served by 20 or 30 armed individuals with minimal training, if any, blasting away on a crowded street. That contention defies common sense. Making midtown Manhattan into Mogadishu benefits no one.

So, back to the original point: Training = good.

The extra training that you advocate would cost the person wishing to exercise his 2nd amendment right to own a firearm more money. Also, you see no problem with increasing fees to fund training and other regulatory expenses.

I can stand in the middle of the town common with a sign saying how mad I am at the BoS for their proposed bylaw absolutely free of charge because to charge me money to do so would violate my 1st amendment rights. How do you justify making the exercising of a person's 2nd amendment rights cost prohibitive?

At the end of the day, you are advocating that only those who can affordd it can excerceze their right to defend themselves. The rest have to rely on the LEO who may or may not be around when needed.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this. There is no way you'll convince me that responsible law abiding citizens who have already been fingerprinted and checked several times should have to go through mandatory training to operate something as simple as a gun and do so at his own expense.

CCR, a Class B LTC allows large-capacity rifles and shotguns but not large-capacity handguns, so an AR would be permissible with a Class B. http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/education/hed/hed_gun_laws.htm

Other than that, I agree that the local ban on ARs is pointless, but I completely agree with Jefferies' suggestion about the town militia, if it was used for training and education.

Mike, The Supreme Court in 2008 ruled on the matter of requiring gun owners to be a member of an organized militia. It clearly states, and I quote:

"1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2-53.
(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22."

The second amendment completely separates the right to own a gun from the wishes of any government entity including locals who wish to make membership in a militia mandatory. Unless you know better than the supreme court, Jefferies (and your) idea of required militia membership is unconstitutional.

RIch, this is a "will issue" state with three different types of licensing. Reserving Class A LTC permits for those with the proper training, and issuing Class Bs or FIDs to those without training, is already well within the CURRENT jurisdiction of the town police chief....and doesn't infringe on the rights enumerated in the Heller decision that you're quoting.

Right now, it's up to the chief's discretion to issue a Class A if requested, or limit the permit to a Class B (or rarely, an FID). The training aspect can be used as just one of the determining factors used in decision making. A blanket town ban on semi-auto weapons would be an over-reach, but requiring training for permit holders would not be.

State law already prevents that kind of info from being distributed outside of law enforcement. That issue is a non-starter.

there are at least two: The Westford Regency and the Swim and Tennis Club.
No way is the town going to approve tax dollars to buy and operate a swimming pool.

Why can't we invite the 'Y' to set up shop in Westford?

Go ahead, contact the Y and ask them "Y Not?". You don't have to wait for the local pols to do it. I'd welcome them, but I doubt that they would do it, prove me wrong!

Have you seen the reviews of those two? I don't think so. I believe most people OPPOSED to spending are likely retired or with grown kids. Am I right?

Is there something wrong with being retired,or not having kids not wanting to add to real estate taxes with the addition of a swimming pool?
Sounds like the 'ME' effect thinking is still alive in this town.

I'm not retired and I do have school aged children. Westford cannot afford, and does not need, an indoor swimming pool. I agree about not liking the Regency (not kid friendly at all, with limited family hourse) and have not used the Swim and Tennis.

Very close by, on 110 in Chelmsford, the Radisson has a large indoor pool, very affordable for a family membership (much, much, cheaper then the two Westford pools) with open swim all the time. Works for us.

I agree, please pay attention tomorrow (Friday, Jan. 18) for tomorrow's story at the top of the newsletter on the budget, particularly tonight's FinCom meeting.

Feel free to keep on paying attention to this too, though.

P.S. - Sorry for the delay on the other story from this meeting, I've written both, will try to squeeze both in for tomorrow.

Really Jim, are you so clever? Drugs are banned in the entire US of A. Does that mean cops break into people's homes to enforce it!
The way to enforce it is that there must be "some" police clearance required to obtain an assault weapon. So if the requestor is a Westford resident, he will be denied that clearance.

Citizen, it's actually very easy -- possibly too easy -- to obtain an LTC if you have a clean record. It just takes a long time. Meanwhile, your LTC doesn't say they you actually know how to use your weapon, just that you've completed a Basic Firearms Safety course. That's it. Period. (And yes, I have one.)

Also, even as you're getting checked out for your LTC, there's no way for a licensing authority to know whether you're a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic, have anger control issues, are clinically depressed and suicidal, or have any other mental illness associated with higher rates of harm to one's self or others.

Everyone is focusing on crime and the stereotypical image of "criminals", but the people we have to worry about in mass killings often don't have criminal records, yet they're unhinged enough to shoot a classroom of 6-year-olds.

Mike,
so are we going to base our laws and statutes off of the highly rare cases such as mass shootings? I believe in the equal protection clause but I do not believe these rare events support any reason to restrict gun control, ask yourself why before sandy hook we wernt discussing this very topic, its as if a horrible yet rare occasion is driving this debate when in reality we are trumping the rights of the many to make others who are scared of firearms feel better. Also i want to make it clear that i have no problems with background checks to a certain extent, and also I want to understand what limiting mag capacity will do, it takes about a second to drop a mag and reload one if you limit capacity people will either illegally get high cap mags or will just buy more.