Lively Crowd Discusses Gun Rights, Mental Health Requirements
The Holliston Democratic Town Committee's discussion 'Let's Talk Guns' was full to capacity.
Videos
What the Holliston Democratic Committee hoped would be a calm and civil discussion about gun laws and safety in Massachusetts turned in to debate on the rights of gun owners and the specifics of Rep. David Lisky's proposed House Bill 3253.
The panel of five experts, specifically Linsky, D-Natick, were asked many questions regarding their beliefs on guns and their knowledge of Massachusetts' laws surrounding gun ownership.
"I would have liked people to be a little more civilized but a lot of people came in really fired up,” Beth Greely, Chairman of the DTC, said; at several points Greely and others had to quiet down the crowd and remind them not to interrupt other speakers. “Hopefully people got something out of it, that’s always good. This will make it easier next time we have the discussion.”
The capacity crowd was a split between Holliston residents and non-residents, although a vocal majority were pro-gun activists. At several times during the conversation moderator Barbara Gardner had to ask for questions from people who were in support of stricter gun control.
Cori Ryan, a Westford resident in attendance, brought a question before Linsky regarding the difference between the words 'committed' and "adjudicated" as used in his bill.
"I took the opportunity to ask him a specific question about his bill and I think he will take it into consideration while reviewing the bill," Ryan said. "My worry is that people who need firearms for defense won't seek mental health for something like an eating disorder because they are scared they might be committed and will therefore be prevented from getting a gun."
The conversation around guns ended with the panelists listing three ways they would like to see more gun safety in the state of Massachusetts.
Holliston Police Chief John Moore suggested strengthening the mental health system, continuing gun safety training for gun applicants and for more help from the public when they believe there is a threat.
Jim Wallace, Executive Director Gun Owners’ Action League, suggested reforming the states laws to make them understandable, providing gun education in the schools and addressing the mental health issues.
The other two panelists were Director of Holliston Youth and Family Services Margaret Fitzpatrick who spoke about the town's youth intervention program and Jerry Belair, Legislative Director for Stop Handgun Violence who spoke adamantly in favor of requiring background checks across the country.
In This article
-
-
Holliston Police Department
550 Washington St, Holliston, MA -
Town of Holliston: Youth and Family Services
100 Linden St, Holliston, MA
Cori Ryan
9:40 am on Friday, March 22, 2013
I just wanted to clarify what I had said during the interview last night.
My concern when the change from adjudicated to committed. Currently if you have been adjudicated to a mental health facility, you are prevented from obtaining a Class A license and cannot purchase firearms. For every purchase, you are required to sign your name to a document saying that you were not and an FBI background check is then conducted. This covers people whom a judge saw as a threat to themselves or others and were ordered to a hospital.
Confinement includes voluntary admittance to a hospital for just about any mental health issue. Most mental health patients are non-violent and may be dealing with a one time issue in their life that is extra difficult and having a place to go and focus on dealing with it is a valid option. This should be encouraged and should not be stigmatized: postpartum, returning from military service, eating disorder.
The change from adjudicated to confined is going to make people think twice about getting mental health treatment if it is going to prevent them from owning a firearm for sport or self defense. People will also be hesitant to access a counselor or therapist if this might open the door to the loss of their sport or self defense.
We need to make mental health services more available, not more stigmatized.
Terraformer
1:31 pm on Friday, March 22, 2013
There is no change from adjudicated to confined. The statutory disqualifier is currently defined in 140 § 131 as confined and as you suspect, many do not seek out help because of it. We have guns owners who merely get treated for minor issues and are denied as a matter of course. We have women especially who seek treatment as teens and then can't even get pepper spray as adults.
Until these laws focus on the true dangerousness of the applicant, the gun laws in this state will be a joke and ineffective. But when the goal is to destroy the right, focusing on dangerousness isn't an effective strategy.
BTW: The "we" I speak of is Comm2a.org, of whom I am a board member, which is suing the state on a lot of these issues, but we haven't tackled the mental health abuses here in the state.
Cori Ryan
2:23 pm on Friday, March 22, 2013
Terraformer, both I and Representative Linsky believe that his proposal did change the word 'adjudicated' to 'confined'. I am not sure why you claim it did not change, but the author thinks he did and I have a copy of his bill with that change highlighted. I also confirmed this with Jim Wallace from GOAL before I brought it up last night. I am still confident that Linsky did made that change in his proposal and it is apparent that Linsky thinks so as well.
Cori Ryan
9:43 am on Friday, March 22, 2013
And most importantly, I wish to thank the Democratic Committee for holding the discussion. They did a fantastic job at getting a broad set of people for the discussion and did a great job at keeping the lines going.
Also, thank you to all who attended the panel. Being accessible to people who had questions or simply needed to just be heard meant a great deal.
Thank you!
kevin barry
11:46 am on Friday, March 22, 2013
if only "a vocal majority" were pro-gun then why did they have too look for or seek out by request people in favor of gun contol........ try an overwhelming majority favor the 2nd amendment!!!!! the same thing happened when tierney did his at lynn classical the panel 100% gun control advocates (member from goal couldn't mak it) and the crowd overwhelmingly were pro 2nd amend folks..... of course these things are put on by democratss who end up not getting the support they hoped for and an overwhelming opposition...... then marginalize the peoples opinions and and ignore them .... and push the national socialist agenda!!!!!!! why waste your time haveing these and writing stories about them of you cant be truthful and actually represent your constituents rather than tow the partyline!!!!!!
Joel
12:04 pm on Friday, March 22, 2013
I think the Mental Health provision is dangerous. I think in the long run it will create more stigmas around getting a mental health check or seeking a counselor or someone who can help you in a time of need. Instead people will choose to go it alone. As someone who works with soldiers I can tell you that if the law passes they will no longer be going to the VA or seeking any type of mental health. In an era where stepping forward means having courage. This will mean stepping forward means possible discrimination and loss of rights. A hippa requirment is also saying you don't have a right to privacy when applying for a firearm and that is wrong. We will in essence create the enviorment for a mental health crisis instead of catching the truly mentally ill.
State Reps please consider when you're voted into office. Your opinions and ideals are yours and your right to have. As an elected official you are to enforce the constitution and follow its restraints, Read it, it doesn't need to be interpreted. It is pretty clear! For items not clear on your limits. You are there as a leader to listen and enforce what the people want.
Also Assault weapons capable of full auto fire are illegal since 86 please don't refer to the look alike as such. David Linskey admitted that rifles and "Assault Weapons" were not a problem at all. Therefore I would respectfully like to know when Massachusetts will be repealing this legislation if it is not having any affect on deterring crime.
Joel
12:16 pm on Friday, March 22, 2013
I also put "Assualt weapons" in quotes because they are not assault weapons. They look like the real thing, but the AR-15 fires the same way as an M-14. The M-14 which is not affected by the Assault weapons ban on state or federal level proposals. This ban only addresses the way the firearm looks and does not affect its function. Please stop making pieces of plastic illegal with placebo legislation. I would truly like to see a crack down on gang violence, officer on the street conducting stings of drug dealers, and holding the real bad people responsible.. I would also like to see people to have better access to mental health. Requiring insurance companies to cover it 100% while also mandating privacy and not forcing someone to reveal on any level their medical history. To be destroyed or not is not a guarantee. In the end you only create a mental health crisis with more legislation that in theory does sound good, but in practice will mean less people feeling they can step up with out being treated differently or being discriminated in some way for speaking up. This is really a bad idea.
Nashoba Liberty
5:02 pm on Friday, March 22, 2013
Any time you have a proposed State law that requires you to waive your protections under Federal law (ie. HIPPA) in order to exercise your Constitutional rights, you have a prima-facie real problem on your hands. Can't imagine that this can get any traction in this Commonwealth, but then again, it IS Massachusetts...