Massachusetts Continues Attempt to Infringe Citizens’ Self-Defense Rights

Massachusetts Continues Attempt to Infringe Citizens’ Self-Defense Rights

By Steve Pomper

Let’s follow-up on a disgrace we covered, occurring in the birthplace of American liberty, Massachusetts. Disgraceful, yes, but we begin with some good news. According to the Boston Herald, “The state’s police chiefs do not support the Legislature’s efforts to strengthen Massachusetts [anti-] gun laws [aimed at law-abiding gun owners] – and it’s unanimous.”

I was born and raised in the Bay State, so I know the chiefs’ vote is a big freakin’ deal. When sheriffs, usually elected by voters, oppose politicians’ violations of the Second Amendment, we celebrate it, but we’re not as surprised—and that’s a good thing. 

But when police chiefs, most often appointed by leftist mayors, city councils, or selectmen unanimously oppose anti-gun/self-defense legislation, especially in a deep blue state, we should take notice.

We often hear from gun-stupid folks that “no one needs an AR-15” and “no one needs more than ten rounds of ammunition.” No one can know what every person will need in any self-defense situation.

To my point, let’s take a brief look at Hamas’s recent savage surprise attack on largely unarmed civilians in Israel. Tell me none of those victims at the concert and in nearby Kibbutzim wish they had firearms to defend themselves, their families, and other innocents. And even if they had them, ten rounds of ammo per magazine would not have nearly been enough. Ten bullets would lasted about ten seconds—if that.

One reason to focus on the horror Hamas inflicted on Israeli civilians is because, if our college campuses, open borders advocates, and some antisemitic politicians are any indication of the terrorist threat, civilian neighborhoods across the U.S. could have to deal with what Israel is confronting. Think it couldn’t happen here? It just happened in what is normally one of the most prepared and well-defended nations on earth. There’s a reason they call unarmed civilians “soft targets.”


And speaking of well-prepared, the New York Post reported on a young Israeli woman, Inbar Lieberman, 25 years old, whose preparedness and quick actions saved her Kibbutz community from “more than two dozen advancing terrorists….” She sent five of them to Hell herself. Lieberman is the brave Kibbutz “security coordinator” who performed spectacularly.  

So close to Gaza, she knew the explosions and gunfire she heard that day were different than usual. She immediately activated her 12-member community militia, dashed to the armory, and distributed firearms. She strategically positioned her defenders where, for more than four hours, they fought off the Hamas savages. The Post described that the young woman’s actions transformed the Kibbutz “into an impenetrable fortress—while nearby kibbutzim suffered heavy losses.,” with entire families slaughtered. 

In related news, The Times of Israel reported the government has “eased restrictions,” allowing “hundreds of thousands more Israelis… to carry guns….” That would have been nice before the attack. Like New York City, Israel had required even army vets to show a “need” for a firearm before getting permission to carry. After this ruthless attack, will any law-abiding Israeli ever again have to “show a need” to exercise their right to self-defense—their God-given right to life?


Fortunately for the U.S., we have the Second Amendment, which guarantees our right to life through an equally unalienable right to self-defense. Unfortunately, too many American Marxists (which should be an oxymoron) don’t believe in playing by the rules—the Constitution.

Which brings us back to the Mass. gun grab. The Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association (MCOPA) recently met to discuss Bill HD.4607, deceptively titled “An Act Modernizing Firearm Laws.” While the police chiefs are showing wisdom in their collective decision, not all organizations are as astute or patriotic. They would leave their fellow Americans defenseless against criminals—or terrorists.  

The League of Women Voters, Mass. chapter, a once respected organization, which has become increasingly radical left over the decades, supports the bill. They dusted off the childish argument that gun deaths “must go to zero,” making no distinction regarding the nature of the incidents. If it involved good guys protecting their lives or their families by taking out armed bad guys, I don’t want the number to be “zero.” This foolish position is more evidence of just how gun-stupid people can be. 

To refresh you, as I wrote in a previous NPA articleGOAL director Jim Wallace described a portion of the bill, which even affects cops. “One of the provisions of the atrocity of the proposal by Rep. Michael Day limits the carrying of firearms of any type in certain ‘sensitive’ places, and then goes a step further, including basically all public and private properties – unless permission is given or posted conspicuously. The exemption is for police and security guards on official business – which translates into ‘on duty,’” effectively—insanely—disarming cops while off-duty.

Incredibly, “Chairman Day is still telling his House colleagues that the bill is necessary to bring Massachusetts in compliance with Bruen!” Oh, the slime that oozes out of that man. How could Bruen, a SCOTUS decision that affirmed Second Amendment rights, comply with a bill that so clearly infringes on the people’s self-defense/firearms rights?

The GOAL website provides resources for interested parties who want to increase their knowledge of the issue to contact their representatives:

GOAL’s Breakdown of HD.4607

GOAL’s HD.4607 Red Flag Breakdown

GOAL also provides video testimony given by GOAL’s staff, including their director of advocacy, and the MCOPA:

GOAL Staff HD.4607 Testimony Video

Kerrie Ann Auclair’s Testimony Video

MA Chiefs of Police Testimony Video

HD.4607 is scheduled for a vote on October 18, 2023. GOAL said it would not file any further amendments as “Simply put – there is no way to fix HD.4607 through amendments” because it is a civil rights-killing monstrosity. Okay, the last part was mine, but I’m thinking the folks at GOAL and the Massachusetts patriots fighting this battle would agree.