(This post may contain disputed claims. We make no assertions as to the validity of the information presented by our Opinion Columnist. We are an opinion blog, not a traditional news outlet, and this post should be treated as such. Enjoy.)Massachusetts has some pretty tough gun control laws. Apparently, anyone who uses a firearm to defend him or herself in their own home automatically loses their guns.
A man in the Cape Cod area had to use a gun to shoot a dog that was attacking him inside his bedroom, and the police promptly confiscated all of his firearms. He wasn’t charged with any crime. By all accounts, the cops thought this was a justified shooting, and yet they still took his guns.
The Boston Globe reports that last week a 25-year old man and his girlfriend were relaxing on the bed in their West Yarmouth home when a pit bull they were fostering snapped. The dog attacked the couple. When the man tried to push it away, it clamped down on his arm. The dog refused to release the man, so he reached for a 9mm handgun he kept in the nightstand. The man fired at the pit bull, and it ran off, dying shortly after.
The man was taken to the hospital with severe injuries to his left arm. Here’s what the responding police had to say:
“The single shot stopped the attack and the dog died shortly afterwards. The man is fully licensed to have firearms in Massachusetts,” said Yarmouth police in a statement.
And yet:
Police took the man’s handgun, a 12-gauge shotgun, and ammunition found in the home “for safekeeping.”
Why is “safekeeping” in quotes? That usually indicates sarcasm or that something isn’t entirely true. Is “safekeeping” code for “illegal confiscation” of legally owned firearms?
Maybe it doesn’t matter because the fact remains the police took this guy’s legally owned guns after he defended himself and his girlfriend from a vicious dog attack in their own home. How does this make any sense?
Boston.com also reported on this but didn’t shed any light on the mystery of why the cops took this guy’s guns:
While the man is licensed to have guns, police took the 9mm handgun, plus a 12-gauge shotgun and ammunition, from the home.
And the Yarmouth police, posting on their Facebook page, also didn’t indicate why they snatched up this guy’s guns.
The 9mm handgun, a 12 gauge shotgun, and related ammunition were removed from the home for safekeeping at Yarmouth Police Department Headquarters.
An extensive search reveals that there have been no further news reports on this deeply disturbing case. There is nothing about whether this guy got his guns back when he was released from the hospital or if he was perhaps charged with a crime. There
Massachusetts has a safe storage law that requires all firearms be stored unloaded in a locked case or with a trigger lock, even in one’s own home. Violating this law is punishable by a $7,500 fine and up to a year and a half in prison. Plus, any unsecured firearms found by law enforcement may be confiscated and the owner’s firearm license revoked.
Is it possible that responding officers viewed the 9mm the man used to defend against the attacking pit bull to be unsecured? Is this the reason why they took his legally owned guns from inside his home?
If so, Massachusetts officially has the worst gun law in the country. California and some other places have safe storage laws, but those only apply if there are young children in the residence. Adults are allowed to have a loaded firearm in the home for self-defense purposes. That doesn’t appear to be the case in Massachusetts.
If a person isn’t legally able to use a loaded firearm in his or her own home to defend against a dangerous and deadly threat, that’s the exact same thing as not being allowed to own a gun at all. This man and his girlfriend would have likely been mauled to death by the vicious pit bull if he hadn’t shot it to death. Now, it looks like he has lost both his guns and his gun ownership rights. Maybe there’s some liberal out there who can explain how this gun law makes anyone safer.
