A lot of the time, anti-gun candidates like to pretend they’re not interested in gun bans. So-called fact-checkers then say anyone who says otherwise is wrong, but the reality is that many of them actually do want them. They’re just smart enough not to say it.

This happens in not just pro-gun states, either. Anti-gun candidates in pretty much every state at least pay lip service to the idea that gun bans are a non-starter.

However, one Massachusetts candidate apparently missed the memo saying this is a terrible idea.

Ban private gun ownership?

One Massachusetts state representative candidate says he sympathizes with that cause.

Anthony Ferrante, an unenrolled candidate running against state Representative Kim Ferguson (R-Holden) in the First Worcester District, takes that position.

Here is what his campaign web site says about firearms:

 

I own two firearms. Neither of which are an AR style weapons. I support three types of firearm legislation which are limiting caliber and magazine size, red flag laws and increasing firearm training. As a Marine, I am thoroughly trained with small arms. I would like those civilians that have small arms to have the same or similar training. The length of the training allows for better identification of those individuals that should not have weapons.

To those who think firearms should be banned outright, I have sympathy for that cause. I also believe that an outright ban is not going to happen in my lifetime (see Scotus ruling on Bruen).

To those that think that firearms should not be regulated at all, I would simply point to multiple mass shootings around the country against unequivocally innocent victims and ask where your heart is.

As Ferrante points out, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2022 in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen against a New York state law requiring people to demonstrate a proper need in order to receive a concealed carry permit.

Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, praised Ferrante’s honesty — despite vehemently disagreeing with the candidate on gun rights.

“At least he is honest about being a gun prohibitionist,” Gottlieb told New Boston Post by email. “But the Bill of Rights is not just for some of us. It’s for all of us!”

I’m with Gottlieb here. I appreciate the honesty, at least.

Now, some may say he didn’t say he supported gun bans, only expressed sympathy for the cause, but that’s a difference without distinction. If you’re sympathetic to a given cause, it’s one you actually agree with. Note that he doesn’t mean it as if he’s simply sympathetic to the desire to take drastic action. He says it won’t happen in his lifetime, but nowhere does he suggest that he doesn’t support it or desire any such ban.

In other words, yeah, he wants a gun ban. He just knows that the legal climate has made damn sure it won’t happen.

Of course, Bruen is only one of the rulings in his way. Heller and McDonald aren’t that old and Heller made it very clear that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. McDonald made it clear that the Second Amendment applied to state and local governments.

Bruen just reinforced the fact that the Second Amendment is actually a thing that limits the government.

But yeah, Ferrante is at least honest about what he wants to do. More or less, anyway.

See, he says he owns guns, which is what a lot of anti-gunners like to say. He thinks everyone should get similar training to what he got in the Marine Corps. But he also won’t say he doesn’t agree with a ban. Of course, training requirements are blatantly unconstitutional and regressive, negatively impacting the poorer Americans who can’t afford such training, which is close enough, I’m sure.

It’s not like a state lawmaker wouldn’t get to keep his guns if there was some kind of ban, right? There’s always an exception that allows the elites to live a better existence than we mere peons.

But never let them convince you that this isn’t what every single anti-gunner wants on some level or another.