ONE WEEK AFTER an unusual move to open discussions on compromise gun legislation to the public, a House-Senate conference committee reversed course and closed the doors, citing personal safety for the reversal.
Sen. Joan Lovely of Salem, a member of the conference committee, said her family was stalked after her prior participation on a committee dealing with gun regulations and that person has resurfaced.
“I don’t feel safe,” said Lovely, who joined the committee on Wednesday remotely. “I have my own public records law in my office because the Legislature does not have to comply, so I am very serious when it comes to transparency, but I am as serious when it comes to safety.”
She said her concern for her family’s safety prompted her to consider purchasing a gun. “In 2020, because of threats to myself and my daughter, I got my license to carry. I wanted to be able to, if I needed to, purchase a firearm to protect my family,” Lovely said.
Advocates were empathetic to Lovely’s story. “We also want this to be a safe process for everyone and to get to an outcome where we feel like we are going to continue to save more lives,” said Ruth Zakarin, executive director of the Massachusetts Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence
But Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr of Gloucester, while also sympathetic to Lovely’s story, was not eager to close the doors, which is the norm on Beacon Hill.
“It seems to me that by closing the process of public scrutiny, we are increasing the possibility of an increase in distrust,” said Tarr.
Rep. Michael Day of Stoneham, the House chair of the Judiciary Committee, said the decision to take the hearing private was largely based on the fact that, despite the state’s low homicide rate, shootings in Massachusetts continue to threaten communities.
“We need to move this along quickly and expeditiously. The public is seeing what’s in the bills, the public has debated, and we are certainly hearing their thoughts. It’s up to us to negotiate to get a deal done,” said Day.
Democratic conferees also cited the potential for litigation as a reason to close the sessions, prompting pushback from Tarr.
“I am seeing the concern about the product of what we do is the subject of litigation, but I would suggest that there are many issues, if not the vast majority of issues, that we deal with in the Legislature that could be the subject of litigation,” said Tarr. “To suggest that this particular issue should be singled out because of that prospect, I don’t think is an appropriate reason to close this committee.”