The Gun Owners Action League is warning that Massachusetts residents could soon have to prove their marksmanship before being able to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
Under the state’s sweeping gun control measure known as Chapter 135, every applicant for a License to Carry (which is required to simply possess a handgun in the home) must undergo a training course that requires both written and live-fire tests.
The state’s Executive Office of Public Safety and Security (EOPSS), the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services (DCJIS), and the Massachusetts State Police recently announced a public hearing to solicit input on two new regulations, including the live-fire mandate.
The state is proposing that the live fire portion of the training “shall satisfy the following parameters:
1. A minimum of 20 rounds; and
2. A minimum of 5 rounds from a distance of 3 yards; 5 rounds from a distance of 7 yards; 5 rounds from a distance of 10 yards; and
3. A target size of 10.5 inches by 12 inches; and
4. All 5 shots in any sequence must hit the target section to be counted; and
5. Student’s must display proficiency in safely loading no more than five (5) rounds into the firearm utilized, safely fire the rounds, safely load five (5) more rounds and safely fire those rounds. All loading shall be performed by the student.
GOAL noted in its response to the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security that the vast majority of those undergoing the mandated training will be unfamiliar with firearms, “so expecting them to be proficient enough to pass a test is not fair and flies in the face of what the law purports to be doing.”
It should be about getting people comfortable with manipulating a firearm, handling it safely, and getting used to the feel of it firing when they pull the trigger. What it should not be is yet another barrier to entry for people to exercise a constitutional right. GOAL urges EOPSS to ensure that this training remains training and not another test.
GOAL remains opposed to tying the exercise of a constitutional right to training mandates in general, but it’s going to take litigation or repeal of Chapter 135 to address that. But so long as the training mandate exists, GOAL is absolutely right about it serving as legitimate training and instruction, not a barrier to the exercise of a fundamental right.
Expecting a non-gun owner to go 5-for-5 at 3, 7, and 10 yards is unreasonable, in my opinion. As GOAL’s Mike Harris points out, many, if not most, of those attending these training classes will be unfamiliar with firearms in general, and they certainly won’t be shooting a pistol they own since they’re not able to purchase one without the LTC permit they’re seeking.
Now, these proposed requirements are “minimums”, which suggests that those undergoing the training can fire as many rounds as their instructor will allow them in their attempt to hit the target five times in a row. That’s somewhat helpful, but if you’re in a class of ten people you’re can’t reasonably expect to be the only one on the firing line for ten or fifteen minutes at each distance while you try to meet the state’s mandate. Even if students could afford an unlimited amount of ammunition, there’s only a limited amount of time for the instructors, and the larger the class size the more limited that time on the firing line will be.
I share GOAL’s concerns that this could easily be used as a way to deprive Massachusetts residents of their right to keep and bear arms. I’m not particularly optimistic that the powers that be will respond accordingly to GOAL’s concerns, which makes repeal of Chapter 135 at the ballot box this November even more important. Check out the work that The Civil Rights Coalition is doing to undo these restrictive policies, and do what you can to help as well.
Read the full article here
