Grossman, GOAL’s Wallace Debate Guns

Coakley campaign blasts event outside Beacon Hill in Boston as a "stunt."

State Treasurer Steve Grossman and Jim Wallace of GOAL debate at the Statehouse on April 27, 2014. Courtesy
State Treasurer Steve Grossman and Jim Wallace of GOAL debate at the Statehouse on April 27, 2014. Courtesy

The head of the state’s largest gun ownership rights organization and a Democratic candidate for governor faced off outside the Statehouse in Boston on April 17, to debate gun policy.

Much of the debate between Jim Wallace, the executive director of the Gun Owners’ Action League, representing more than 350,000 registered gun owners in the Bay State, and state Treasurer Steve Grossman, a gubernatorial candidate, centered around Gov. Deval Patrick’s “one gun a month” policy and a proposal by former state Sen. Warren Tolman, who is running to be the attorney general, requiring smart technology on all firearms sold in Massachusetts.

Wallace emphasized “the plight of law-abiding gun owners who feel persecuted under the current Massachusetts laws and the abject failure of the current laws to reduce crime,” while Grossman chastised opponent, Martha Coakley, the current attorney general, for blowing off the debate.

"Martha Coakley doesn't think one gun a month is enough for Massachusetts residents, and even worse she’s not here today to tell us why she rejects this common-sense gun safety measure,” Grossman said. “I just don't understand why she continues to side with NRA on this issue. Simply put, gun laws save lives. And there are more lives we can save through common-sense solutions that stop gun violence."

Coakley’s campaign told The Associated Press she wouldn’t attend, calling the debate a "stunt."

Wallace countered Grossman’s comments by saying, “These candidates need to realize the failure gun control in Massachusetts … What we need to do is stop dividing ourselves on useless policies and join together to find a way to stop the criminals from trafficking guns like our legislation, H. 3264, The Civil Rights and Public Safety Act.”

GOAL updated its Twitter followers saying, “We had fun at the debate, lets do it again with all of the candidates!” The group hopes to hold similar events with other candidates before the election. 

mark April 22, 2014 at 02:43 PM
Like I said, the liberals want guns removed from citizens possession because it is a matter of time before the guns will be used justifiably on them to remove them from power! Just like what happened to JFK!
John Wolf April 22, 2014 at 03:09 PM
We need to stop fighting rearguard actions, and call these attempts on our liberty for what they are; deliberately concocted "wedge" issues designed to bog down the debate in a morass of semantics over the nomenclature of firearms, "assault" this and "smart" that, "semiautomatic" versus whatever, etc. etc. The end game is civilian disarmament. Its proponents have for far too long been allowed to set the terms of the debate, establishing such language as "common sense," "gun violence" (as if edged-weapon violence, blunt-object violence or bare-hands violence is somehow "o-k"), and making people believe that they "don't want to take our guns," when that is exactly their intention. We need to confront this deceptive language with language of our own-the truth- and get it out there. When nationwide the ratio of [successful] defensive firearm use is on a ratio of roughly 60:1 to the criminal use of arms, and the violent crime rate nationwide has steadily decreased over the last 20+ years while gun ownership has skyrocketed, it should be abundantly clear: crime and violence is NOT the reason they want our guns. Any honest history of the modern world should tell the reader why they do.
Lynne Roberts April 22, 2014 at 09:58 PM
If only more of the 49% of voters would read the history! They're not informed and therein lies the problem.
Prometheus April 23, 2014 at 07:21 AM
All rights are under attack....look at markey's proposal...he is after the First.
MoonBeamWatcher May 07, 2014 at 09:33 AM
Coakley, Martha isn't she the MA DA who brought discretionary criminal charges against the father who beat the snot out of the illegall who molested his son? The same DA who when everone knew that Tooky Amarault was innocent refused to let him out of jail after being incarsarated for 14yrs!? She's a typical ink grabbing Obama like liberal who should be retired from government service since she serves herself only!


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »