.

GUN OWNERS ACTION LEAGUE (GOAL) APPLAUDS PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE ON RELEASE OF BIPARTISAN BACKED BILL THAT REFORMS PEPPER SPRAY LAWS

GUN OWNERS ACTION LEAGUE (GOAL) APPLAUDS PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE ON RELEASE OF BIPARTISAN BACKED BILL THAT REFORMS PEPPER SPRAY LAWS

 

GUN OWNERS ACTION LEAGUE (GOAL) APPLAUDS PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE ON RELEASE OF BIPARTISAN BACKED BILL THAT REFORMS PEPPER SPRAY LAWS

 

BOSTON - The Gun Owners Action League of Massachusetts (GOAL) today applauds the efforts of the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security for giving its bill, H. 2145, An Act Relative to Non-lethal Self Defense Sprays, a favorable report from the committee. The bill removes the requirement that a person obtain a license in order to possess pepper spray.

 

Massachusetts is the only state in the nation that requires a person to obtain a license to own pepper spray. Current violation of these laws can result in up to two years in jail and the required concealed weapons permit can cost up to $100.

 

H. 2145, filed by Rep. Kim Ferguson (R-Holden), is one of five bills filed this session to remove the licensing requirement for pepper spray.  The bills are backed by a bipartisan alliance of legislators including Committee Chairman, Sen. James Timilty (D-Walpole) and House Minority Leader, Rep. Bradley H. Jones (R-North Reading).

 

“House Bill 2145 boils down to a matter of increased self-defense options, especially for women,” said Rep. Ferguson. “By allowing Massachusetts’ residents and non-residents, aged 18 or older, to carry self-defense spray as a protection against potential attackers, we as a Legislature will reaffirm our commitment to public safety in all circumstances.”

 

 “We are excited to see movement on this common sense bill,” said Jim Wallace, Executive Director of GOAL.  “Recent FBI reports show that Massachusetts has some of the highest violent crime rates in the Northeast. We should be allowing adults, from college students to the elderly, to utilize the most common nonlethal defense there is. This bill is about personal safety and I am happy to see that the legislature recognizes the need for citizens to protect themselves.

 

GOAL is confident that it will get the bill to the Governor’s desk by the end of the legislative session. 

 

 

 

 

 

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

PaulD June 14, 2013 at 08:53 PM
But, of course, our state legislators are trying to solve the problem by making legal gun ownership in MA even more difficult. They want gun owners to have liability insurance and keep their rifles at gun clubs instead of in their homes. Mind you, the number of guns used in crimes that were originally owned by LTC holders is approximately zero.
PaulD June 15, 2013 at 02:31 AM
Actually Ben, there is something preventing them and that is the local police departments that issue those licenses. LTC and FID applications are regularly delayed by months while the statute says they have to be processed in 40 days from the time the application is received. Someone famous once said "a right delayed is a right denied". Further, why should anyone be charged a fee before they can exercise a Constitutional right (Heller spoke to personal defense)? Saying this should be restricted because it can be used as a weapon is absurd. Any criminal can go buy a chef's knife, a baseball bat a or an iron pipe and do a lot more damage than pepper spray will. Hell, if they want the same action they can buy a can buy a can of hornet spray.
PaulD June 15, 2013 at 02:34 AM
Wayne, do you even understand what an "FMJ round" is?
PaulD June 15, 2013 at 02:43 AM
GOAL wasn't involved in that case (they aren't involved in litigation) and how do you know their salaries?
PaulD June 15, 2013 at 03:00 AM
Wayne, the Supreme Court has not actually ruled on whether a person has the right to carry a weapon on his person. The relevant rulings with regards to arms (which in the language of the day meant something a person can carry) are US vs. Miller, Heller vs. DC and MacDonald vs. Chicago. None of these were dealing with the question of whether a person has the right to carry a gun (or other weapon). There are cases in the Circuit courts that address this question and it may get to the SCOTUS soon, but it hasn't so far. BTW, you should read the US vs. Miller decision if you're going to talk about machine guns. You might as well read US vs. Cruikshank as well.

Boards

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 »