Ignoring the science that informs us that gun confiscations don’t prevent suicide, Massachusetts lawmakers are flirting with more progressive dreams of utopia.

BOSTON — Supporters of new gun laws and opponents clashed Tuesday over a bill that would allow guns to be temporarily seized from people deemed at high risk of hurting themselves or others.

Rep. David Linsky filed the legislation, which would add Massachusetts to a handful of states that allow firearms to be seized by a court-issued civil order at the request of families, law enforcement officers or some health care providers.

“There is no way, if a family member goes to a police department or court, there is no legal way to remove the firearms from the house,” Linsky said. “We can close a loophole in the Massachusetts court system.”

The Joint Committee on the Judiciary heard testimony on dozens of bills under the umbrella of “crime legislation” at a crowded public hearing, including two gun suppressor bills.

Ahead of the hearing, Linsky held a lobby day to showcase support for his bill. He is pushing for the establishment of what the bill calls an extreme risk protective order. California, Washington, Connecticut and Indiana have similar laws, according to gun law advocacy groups.

“Gun law advocacy groups.”  Is that what Everytown and Bloomberg have told them to call the controllers now?  Gun law advocacy groups?  So they’re still the controllers, no matter what you call them.  You can’t put lipstick on a pig and get anything but a pig.

Jim Wallace, the executive director of the Gun Owners Action League of Massachusetts, opposes the protective order bill. He said it does not do enough to address what happens after a firearm is taken away from an at-risk person.

“You’ve got somebody who has an issue, you’ve got to drag them through this process which is going to aggravate the issue and then you’re going to take away their civil rights, and then what?” Wallace said. “What are we doing for them? Nothing.”

That’s the wrong reason to oppose this proposal, Jim.  The right reason is that it violates the constitution, which is the covenant under which we all agreed to live, and that constitution is based on God-given rights.

Wallace said the bill “does not tackle the issue of mental health” and raised questions about whether a person deemed an extreme risk should be permitted to do other things like drive a vehicle or handle chemicals.

“And here’s one nobody wants to talk about: If they’re not a citizen, are they immediately deported? Unfortunately the bill is a good soundbite but it’s not a good solution,” Wallace said.

The bill’s supporters argue extreme risk protective orders could lead people to connect with the mental health services they need.

Gun law advocates hissed as Wallace testified for two gun suppressor bills alongside National Rifle Association spokesman John Hohenwarter and American Suppressor Association President and Executive Director Knox Williams. The bills were filed by Rep. Josh Cutler and Rep. Paul Frost.

They hissed because that’s what vipers do.  I made a mistake when I compared them to pigs.  They are more like pit vipers, and you can’t put lipstick on pit vipers either and get anything but a pit viper.

Chelsea Police Chief Brian Kyes and Arlington Police Chief Fred Ryan offered joint testimony against the suppressor bills, saying they put officers and communities at risk.

“This is common sense that the great General Court should oppose this legislation,” Ryan said. “If we increase the volume of suppressors on the streets of commonwealth, we increase the likelihood that they’ll be diverted to illicit use.”

About a dozen communities in the state rely on ShotSpotter, a technology designed to detect gunfire. Kyes said suppressors would hamper the effectiveness of the tool by making gunfire more difficult to detect than it already is.

“They do a pretty good job, not a great job. There’s no way in the world it could pick up something with a suppressor,” Kyes said. “Suppressors would impede public safety.”

If this was true, it would be only because no one besides LEOs can carry weapons in Massachusetts, leaving people defenseless in the face of violence.

Angus McQuilken, a member of the Massachusetts Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence, said before the hearing the suppressor debate isn’t about hearing protection at all. He argued gun manufacturers are hoping to expand into a new market to boost sales.

“This is about the money. What is it almost always about when the gun lobby is trying to advance legislation? It is about the money.

It’s all about the money.  No shooter, like me or the ones who read this web site has ever advocated for suppressors because, you know, they help hearing protection and make it possible to shoot with ear plugs without ear muffs, thus avoiding the difficult cheek weld and get better eye relief.  So says the controllers.

Good Lord.  What an entanglement of ass clowns.  Say, what firearms manufacturers are still ensconced or headquartered in Massachusetts anyway?  Why are they still there?  Don’t they know that we don’t like the controllers?