Massachusetts democrats want major moves on gun safety in 2023

by Amelia Colafati Staff Writer

Originally published Feb. 28

Massachusetts Democrats plan to use the 2023 legislative session to further gun control legislation in the state. The Democrats hold a majority in both the state House and the state Senate. Along with recently elected Democratic Gov. Maura Healey, state legislators and activists have high hopes for a major gun safety package.

Rina Schneur is a leader with the Massachusetts chapter of Moms Demand Action, an organization under the national umbrella organization of Everytown for Gun Safety. According to Schneur, the job of an advocate in a session like the current one is to support survi- vors, survivor-led organizations, promote gun control legislation and educate the public about firearms.

“One aspect is, of course, supporting survivors and survivor-led organizations,” Schneur said. “We also have a whole effort about public education, and working on that level. … And of course, we are advocating for legislation to improve and make sure that Massachusetts is kept a leader in gun violence prevention legislation, but also to catch up with aspects or loopholes that are missing.”

State Representative Christine Barber, D-34th Middlesex, is one of the members of the legislature who hopes to use the session to tackle gun control issues, among other items on the legislative docket. Barber noted that while Massachusetts already has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the United States, new work is constantly being done.

“While Massachusetts has some of the strongest gun laws in the country, there is more that we can do to address loopholes and invest in communities that face high rates of violence,” Barber wrote in an email to the Daily. “We are working in the House to pass a strong bill that will further protect people in Massachusetts and continue to invest in communities that are most impacted by guns.” Barber wants to see future gun safety regulations respond to a broader swath of issues than what is currently addressed in Massachusetts law.

“My hope is that we address issues including domestic violence, suicide, and supporting communities, as well as closing loopholes like ghosts guns and the selling of parts to evade current rules,” Barber wrote.

Barber also acknowledged the important role that advocates, especially those from Moms Demand Action, have played in successfully creating more restrictive gun control measures in the state. She explained that Massachusetts owes much of its strong gun legislation “to the work of activists here who have pushed for safer communities.”

“I’m looking forward to continuing to work with local activists on common sense gun control,” Barber wrote.

Schneur hopes to address similar issues to Barber. Schneur and Moms Demand Action are advocating this session for a series of gun control bills, includ- see GUN CONTROL, page 3

Sen. Patricia Jehlen discusses potential impact of new bill

CHILDCARE continued from page 1

“People said to me, ‘Have you thought about your daughter?’ and they said ‘Have you asked your husband what he thinks?’” Shand said. “I really think Massachusetts has changed dramatically. It has become a much less conventional place than it was even 15 years ago.”

This bill could help pave the way for more people to run for office by including people who could not afford the costs of childcare in addition to the costs of campaigning, according to Sara Suzuki, a researcher with Tufts’ Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement. Suzuki said that the bill could help create a more representational democracy.

“In the United States, even though we want individuals from a lot of diverse backgrounds to seek elected office in order to have a healthy, functioning democracy, the reality is that there are really vast inequities in who gets to run for office,” Suzuki said. “One of the inequities that this Senate bill … addresses is [having] the financial means to get childcare.”

Jehlen recalled being able to have a friend watch her own kids while she knocked on doors for her campaign for school committee, noting how her career might have been altered if she did not have access to childcare.

“I could’ve run, but I wouldn’t have won; I wouldn’t have had time [to campaign].” Jehlen said.

“I knocked on doors for about 20 hours a week. … And so, if I had been paying for that now, it’d be significant.”

Suzuki said the bill could not only provide a form of encouragement to run for office but also help to break down one of many financial barriers that young parents face when running.

“People say that they are extremely concerned about running for office because of the loss of income. … So, anything that can address that in some way is really important,” Suzuki said.

Jehlen said that while there is pushback against the bill, it primarily has to do with people’s misconceptions around the misuse of campaign spending.

“Sometimes people who haven’t thought about it a great deal … think that women would take advantage of it and use campaign funds to go out to dinner with their spouse, or just have a nice time,” she said. “All of those things can happen with regular campaign spending. … People imagine that [child care] will be abused, whereas they don’t imagine that any other form of campaign spending would be abused.”

Shand believes the bill would level the playing field, allowing parents to support their children while pursuing their career goals.

“It’s an incredibly time-consuming process to run a competitive campaign,” Shand said. “It can be an incredible burden on the family under the best of circumstances, … so I really advocate for this bill for people with younger children.”