Editorial from Women and Guns Fenruary 01, 1997
by Peggy Tartaro
Executive Editor
From The Editor...
In the immortal words of Joseph Mankiewicz, as spoken by Bette
Davis in the move All About Eve, "Fasten you seat belts, it's going to be
a bumpy night!"
For those of you who are not cinemaphiles, that 1950 Academy
Award winner is about all sorts of things: the "Theatre," ambition and
getting older. Davis' character, Margo Channing, watches the world and
her own life, with a sort of mordant detachment, that occasionally allows
for panic at the realization that she can control everything in her
world, except perhaps, that which is most important to her. It has, in
its own smarty pants way, a happy ending.
Thinking about this month's column, on our eighth anniversary,
both the signature line of All About Eve, quoted above, and its overall
"lesson" came to mind.
The year 1997 is going to be "bumpy" indeed for gunowners; so
bumpy in fact, that it got started even before the new year. On Page 8
of this issue is the story of one person's decision to, without regard to
the normal process, change the lives of the people who live in his state,
all in the name of "protecting" them.
The Attorney General of Massachusetts, Scott Harshbarger, held
hearings two days before Thanksgiving on his proposal to "regulate"
handguns under the guise of "consumer protection." (For those of you who
don't live in the Bay State, note that Harshbarger is president of the
National Association of Attorneys General, and, therefore, presumably in
a position to map out similar strategies for his fellow AG's.)
Karen MacNutt, who testified at the hearing, discusses some of
the implications of the preversion of "consumer protection" laws in
this manner, on Page 42.
The bottom line of the proposal is that all handguns with a
barrel length of three inches or less will no longer be for sale to
civilians in Massachusetts, since, according to Harshbarger, they are
inherently unsafe and have no "sporting or self-defense purpose." We
have become somewhat used to the "sporting use" argument, which allows
firearms-haters to deem guns which don't fit their notion of a sporting
arm inappropriate for the general populace, even though this contrivance
requires both some twisting of the meaning of "sporting" and a disregard
for the generally held notion that not a single Founding Father ever
imagined that the private ownership of firearms had anything whatsoever
to do with "sports."
Having seen this "sporting use argument" work out with the
generally uniformed public (including gunowners) and media, in the
so-called "assault weapons" debate (you know, the one that ultimately
limited the magazine capacity of semiauto handguns), the rhetorical ball
has now been moved down the field to encompass firearms that have no
value for "self-defense."
If this is to be a new standard, "not useful for self-defense,"
it might be wise to remind the lawmakers and regulators that in "self" in
"self-defense" can vary quite a bit. Generally speaking, whether we are
talking about a handgun or a frying pan, it helps if the "self" can
actually competently handle the item in question. If we are talking
strictly about home or business defense, mandating a barrel length for a
self-protection firearm might not be a big deal to most people (but small
statured men and women as well as handicapped individuals would be out of
luck) even though it still imposes an arbitrary standard. Last time I
looked, however, concealed carry as still an option in the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts, and setting an imaginary ruler against each and every
handgun will run you into some big time problems.
There is a reason handguns are made in barrel lengths of less
than 3", and that is because they are easier to conceal, not just for
women, but for most men, as well.
It is interesting that an exception to this rule is provided for
law enforcement personnel. The regulation then creates two different
classes of consumer in Massachusetts. One is made up of all civilians
who might ever wish to purchase a handgun, either as a first gun, or as
an addition to firearms already owned. This group, following
Harshbarger's logic, needs to be protected from making unwise decisions,
and, to that end, would be proscribed from "unwisely" choosing a self-
defense gun of 3" or less.
The Attorney General's notion of consumer protection does not
extend to those entrusted by others to protect everyone else. How come?
Is it because our safety is so important that those who serve and
protect us should be subject to additional hazards, dangers that
presumably could be solved by requiring police officers to carry only
handguns with barrel lengths of say 3.125"? That would be so only if the
AG's language acknowledged that there was at least one case in millions
in which a 3" or under barreled handgun actually did have a self-defense
purpose.
Will some police union in the state decide to serve General
Harshbarger with a lawsuit based on the following notion: Everyone (at
least the Attorney General) presumes that a barrel length less than 3" is
not effective for self-defense, so police officers using such a firearm
are actually being put in harm's way by the state. If not a police
union, could an officer who didn't want to carry such an unsafe piece of
equipment appeal to a state occupational safety board? How would the
Common wealth respond to such a lawsuit, or board appeal: "We didn't
really mean it when we said 3" or less had no self-defense purpose."
Perhaps the exemption for law enforcement is based on the quaint
notion that police departments have time and money and manpower to
overcome the claimed defects of short-barreled handguns, with additional
training and maintenance? If that were the case, however, then the
regulation should be rewritten to state that "maybe there's something to
these short barreled handguns for self-defense, but the average citizens
should be required to have the same amount of firearms training as the
average police officer. Anyone who knows a police officer (I am related
to two), might be moved to point out that most departments require
qualification sonly once a year, although many officers do spend more
than one day a year at the range, just like most folks interested in
self-defense.
But, the promoters of this scheme might say, what about
undercover police officers, shouldn't they have the option of a shirt
barreled gun? Again, if 3" or less is just plain no good for
self-defense then no one should be carrying them. But, in this case,
what exactly is the police officer undercover as? Might the answer be a
non-law enforcement type person? And if that was the case, should the
officer's "cover" include maintaining the fiction that he or she is just
an average Joe or Jane, which would seem to require carry a larger-than-
three-inch gun?
Wouldn't targeted crime lords just pat down the undercover
officer, and, upon discovering a 2 1/2" handgun, realize that what stood
before them was not a mild mannered accountant, but in fact the only
person legally authorized to carry a short barreled gun?
There are any number of other "regulations" involved in
Massachusetts as well. One would require the "safety" instructions to be
printed on the gun. Karen sent me a little drawing she made, that
unfortunately, will not reproduce well, of a derringer with teeny weeny
writing all over the barrel, grip, trigger, etc. I can't make out all
the words, but the idea is pretty clear: to access all these safety tips,
you'd have to ignore one of the most fundamental firearms safety rules:
never point a gun, even if you're 1000% sure it's unloaded, at yourself
or others.
In his testimony to the folks up in Massachusetts, Richard
Feldman, executive director of an industry trade group, the American
Shooting Sports Council, did do some pointing.
He pointed to his own head and said it would be wise not to
disconnect the most important piece of safety equipment available to
consumers by assuming that people will read and faithfully follow a list
of rules but not use their own brains to figure out not to point a gun at
themselves.
In our rush to protect everyone from everything imaginable and
unimaginable, we sometimes assume that no one has any sense at all. I
recently needed to purchase an iron to replace one that has pressed its
last blouse. The box contained some important safety tips...including
the admonition not ot iron outdoors, near water or next to dynamite. I'm
not saying that's not good advice, just that it seems unlikely that I
will ever be moved to tidy up a linen suit while in a rowboat full of
explosives in the poring rain. Should I adopt such an unwise course, and
survive, I don't think I would have the nerve to sue a manufacturer who
failed to warn me of the dire consequences.
It is a bumpy night indeed when manufacturers have to print up
warnings like that, just as it is absurd to believe that any government
agency can legislate or regulate common sense.
Peggy Tartaro,
Executive Editor
