InFocus featuring Toby Leary & Kendall Knapik (No on Ballot Question 9)

From the 22 News Plus studio, this is 22 News In Focus with Patrick Berry. Hello, everyone, and welcome to this edition of In Focus. I am your host, Patrick Berry. Today, we are having a conversation about the election taking place in early November. Today's conversation is specifically about one of the ballot questions, and it's ballot question nine. It has to do with gun rights for Massachusetts citizens. I'm excited today because joining me across the desk is uh Toby Leary, he is the chairman of the Civil Rights Coalition and and the owner of the Cape Gunworks and on your right is Kendall Nappix, she is the owner of Pioneer Valley Arms in East Longmeadow, this topic is very near and dear to your heart so thank you both so very much for coming in, i i will preface this by and i think i mentioned to you before we started i know nothing about guns, i i have a friends who are gun owners family members who are gun owners, it does not i have no stake in this um but i want to hear your your thoughts on the question because it is it's a very i guess the way it's worded in that little red book that we all got in the mail can be well like any ballot question can be very confusing so again thank you both uh Toby and Kendall for for joining me today um Toby i want to start with you and and the organization and you know obviously you're in the gun business you're a retailer and and and you train people on proper gun usage and and so forth so this is truly you know close to you but why is this question so important in 2026 when it just became law two years ago yeah well thanks for having me on Patrick i really appreciate this and i hope that the people listening to this will also they'll stimulate more debate around this because yeah if we all stop talking then bad things can happen. But I think from a 30,000 foot view, this really strikes at the root of the fabric of our nation, like constitutionality, the constitution itself, the Bill of Rights. And does Beacon Hill or any state legislature have the privilege to erode or encumber our fundamental rights with a simple majority in the statehouse and a signature by the governor? And if the answer to that is no, then really the only way you can vote on November 3rd is to vote no on 9th. If you say, yeah, because it's guns, well, then you need to be intellectually honest and say we can also apply the same standard to every other one of our enumerated rights. I don't think anyone is there yet. People wouldn't say, yeah, we should treat this First Amendment or the Fourth Amendment or the Fifth Amendment, the way we treat the Second Amendment. So there, it brings up the question like Clarence Thomas has written in some of his Supreme Court opinions, that the Second Amendment is not a second-class right. So if that's true, then what gives government the privilege to completely and fundamentally change the way it applies to lawful, peaceful citizens in Massachusetts? So that was kind of the biggest thing that affected us and has been affecting us And before this law passed, we had red flag laws, we had background checks, we have license to carry, we had assault weapons bans, we had magazine capacity bans. And that's what they're saying this law protects us from and does. And frankly, I think it's a solution in search of a problem. We already had the lowest gun related firearms deaths in the nation. We had some of the strictest gun control. And this is just an insatiable appetite, in my opinion, towards total disarmament. I feel like the other side and those who posit these type of gun laws aren't honest with the public about it because that is their end goal. And frankly, they've never seen a gun law that goes too far or that they don't like. And frankly, I think that's why this law needs to be repealed on November 3rd. You know, one of the things I like about having you both here is because you represent two distinct areas of the Commonwealth. You know, Toby, you're from the Cape and the eastern end. Kendall, you're from right here in Western Mass. Are you hearing a lot from your customers and just local residents about their concerns with this question? Yes. So I have a lot of customers who are a little older and they're starting to panic about a shotgun or a rifle that they've had for 50 or 60 years that was passed down from a family member, which is essentially a family heirloom that has sentimental value to them. And they're so afraid that someone's going to find out that they've had this single-action shotgun, single-shot shotgun for many years that they've just been saving because they want to pass it down to their family members. And now they're panicking over just having that one gun in their possession. So educate me because, again, I'm not a gun owner. But why should they panic? Isn't it – do you have to register a gun, right? So if I buy a gun from you, okay? So it's, I don't know, one gun from another. Let's say I buy a gun from you. I have to register that under my name, right? So when you come into a gun store to purchase a gun, we do a federal background check. So any serialized item gets a federal background check. So you put all of your information down every single time you purchase a gun. We run the background check with the feds. They will tell us proceed, deny, or delay. and if they tell us proceed we then go to the next step which is basically a state registration the state didn't call it a registration a few years ago but now they moved on and they started calling it a registration um so then we've registered the serial number under that person's name LTC address where the gun actually physically is and then we are able to give it to them over the counter after they pass through there multiple background checks and this is for every single gun purchase that they do so if i do go through that whole process i'm now registered with the state with that particular firearm correct and i want to give it or sell it to someone else does that does that person again have to do the same like do they have to register it so there's two ways to do it the other person has to have an LTC or an FID they can't be a prohibited person under federal or state law so you would either come into a gun store and we would do the same process for them so my gun store would intake the serial number and then the person who's purchasing it would do the federal background check and then they would do the FA10 which is technically the registration and then they'd be able to leave with the gun under their name so it's taken out of that person's name and put into the other person's name we also have something called private sales in Massachusetts where both parties again have to have a gun permit and they they can skip going into a gun store and they can go from one LTC and sell it in the Massachusetts gun portal. so it is recorded, again, going to that other person who is purchasing it. Correct. Okay. Seems pretty simple. Am I missing something? But are criminals going through that? No. Okay. Toby, you have a comment? yeah, no, i agree that it's the process isn't the problem. in other words, lawful, peaceful citizens who go through all the jump through all the hoops to obtain a license to carry, you know, they take a government mandated class in order to even apply for their license to carry. They have to present a certificate and then they subject themselves to fingerprinting, photographing like you're doing a mugshot literally in the police station. And oftentimes you have to interview with the chief of police in your town and explain to him why you would like to exercise your constitutional right to keep and bear arms. And sometimes the reason isn't good enough. if you tell them that it's for any lawful purpose, they might say, that doesn't work anymore. you've got to give me another reason. so you've got to come up with some other reason why you want to exercise your right to keep and bear arms. then they submit your form to the state you're subject to two or three different background checks and anywhere from on the quick turnaround is probably 30 days could be as much as 90 days if you live in the city it might be as much as 18 months before you get never seen a permit process in 30 days ever it's very rare uh but it might take as much as 18 months and then once the state approves it, if they don't find some subjective reason to deny you on something they call suitability, then they issue you a license and it's valid for five years. So then you can exercise your constitutional right for five years. And if you allow it to expire, that's met with felonious results. You could literally be arrested and jailed for failing to renew your license to care. Very good. We are up on our first commercial break. Folks, please stay with us. There's plenty more to talk about when we come back after this break. This is 22 News in Focus with Patrick Berry. This is 22 News in Focus with Patrick Berry. Welcome back, everyone, to whoops. There we go. Welcome back, everyone, to this edition of In Focus. I'm your host, Patrick Berry. Toby Leary is on your left. Kendall Naffix is on your right. Today, we are talking about question nine that you will see on your November ballot when you head to the polls in the first week of November. So thank you both for joining me. We're talking about the basis of the question and the people's fears of it. I'm not sure who can answer this question, so I'm just going to throw it out there. What is the biggest fear that you're coming against for the people like me who don't know much about guns? What is the biggest pushback on question nine? Well, I'll take it first, and I'm sure Kendall has some thoughts on this as well. But for me, the biggest thing is it takes our limited and valuable police resources that should be going after violent criminals, taking them off the streets, arresting them, prosecuting them, incarcerating them for criminal acts of violence, and diverts that money into going after lawful, peaceful people who are already trying to comply with a checkerboard of unconstitutional laws and prosecuting them for technical violations. So a lot of people woke up two years ago and had no idea the world had changed. Now they have an FID card. They have a Browning A5 shotgun that their father passed down to them to go hunt ducks. They can no longer possess that gun with a FID card. They need to have a license to carry. And most of them don't even know that. But that's been the case for two years already, right? Yes. And so people are starting to get prosecuted for having run afoul of these technical violations of Chapter 135. There's dozens of cases around the state where people's lives have been turned upside down by this new law and they weren't in the commission of a violent crime they weren't in the you know they weren't robbing a liquor store or anything like that so is it more of an education part part to the to gun owners so that they know what these new regulations are rather than well going to the polls to no absolutely not i think there shouldn't safety should never be legislated or uh litigated either way you want to look at it, towards the lawful, peaceful citizens, right? We should have a bright line requirement in the law so everybody knows and understands where they stand with it. Not to mention there's a Supreme Court precedent called Martel that requires legislatures have a concrete need for a law before they pass it. And this, I think, fails at the very basic, fundamental constitutional level. Look at it in relation to the Constitution and say, would we tolerate any of our other rights be treated this way? And if not, why do we allow the Second Amendment to be treated that way? And again, criminals aren't the ones registering their guns, taking out licenses, passing background checks, and doing all the stuff in compliance with this law. We're the ones trying to, but it is so confusing and subjective and arbitrary that people are just by nature going to not know it and end up running afoul. So can I give an example of someone's life who was turned upside down? So the very first case I would say of chapter 135 of someone's life being turned upside down was a gentleman named Kyle Culotta. He was coming here to move to Massachusetts with his girlfriend and they were driving through Massachusetts with all of their items including including some firearms that he had legally owned back in Arizona and they brought all of their items to move to Massachusetts so one night they get pulled over on the way to their final destination which i think was like his sister's house and they get pulled over for a small insurance infraction i guess their insurance didn't roll over to Massachusetts or something and then that ended up being oh do you have any guns in the car what are you guys doing and he did have firearms in the car because he was moving here right so you have a veteran from Arizona who's moving to Massachusetts he was kept in jail held on dangerousness for was it 180 days 120 days 120 days. And without bail, is that where we want our resources to go? Is that who we're directing this law? Because that's who we're punishing right now is someone who is a veteran, fought for this country and then moved to Massachusetts. And that's who went to jail and was held. And that's where our resources are currently going. And that's just one story. That's just one story. There's several more very similar to that. Correct. Interesting. We are up on our, I'm sorry, we're up on our second commercial break. There's still plenty more to talk about folks. We're back in a minute this is 22 news in focus with patrick berry this is 22 news in focus with patrick berry hello everyone and welcome back to this edition of in focus today we are talking about question nine that you'll see on your ballot coming up uh in early november it is the firearm regulations referendum i'm being joined across the desk today by toby leary he is uh the uh chairman of the Civil Rights Coalition, and Kendall Knapek. She is the owner of Pioneer Valley Arms in East Long Meadows. Sorry about that, Kendall. Talking about question nine. So I want to make sure we clarify this for voters who are watching, because these ballot initiatives in Massachusetts can be very confusing on what you're voting for. So if one of you can explain to me what a yes vote on question nine means and what a no vote on question nine yeah so um a no vote would repeal chapter 135 in its entirety okay and uh like i said at the beginning we'll still have an assault weapon ban we'll still have background checks we'll still have license to carry we'll still have large capacity magazines we'll still have red flag laws we'll still have all of the things that they say 135 protects us from a yes vote will keep the law in place and continue in my uh judgment that it'll continue to go after good people for technical violations of the law and just to close the loop on kyle he uh is facing 15 years in jail or moving to massachusetts or moving to Massachusetts for mere possession and if you think about the Second Amendment what does it say the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed that is exactly what he was doing he was keeping and bearing he wasn't committing any other violent act and that there's dozens of people in that state situation right now you know Toby you you brought up a very good point when you were explaining what a yes vote and what a no vote is the the regulations have always been there if i understand the way you describe it the regulations of gun ownership have always been there so really reverting back i'm trying to think how to phrase this by by voting yes you're you're keeping keeping the law but by voting no you keep you revert back to 2024 laws yes which was basically already some of the strictest gun control in the nation yeah yeah so a lot of people are trying to paint a picture that you know we'll have it'll be the wild wild west after we repeal chapter 135 nothing could be further from the truth. We will still have some of the strictest gun control in the nation. So how is it for the both of you as retailers? What are the what are the restrictions on you both when trying to make a sale, make a living? Yeah. So afterwards, actually, the day after the emergency preamble was signed, I actually called my attorney because the way the the law is currently written it's written so poorly the state actually ban every sale of every long gun in the state so i called my attorney and i was like hey can i sell 22 rifle right can i sell any long guns today and he was like well let's wait a little bit and see what happens because we're not sure yet so i don't know if you heard like the state had kind of backtracked realizing that they couldn't do that and they deemed that that part of the law that was poorly written was not going to be enforced for the time being okay so we don't want to arbitrarily not really enforce them right they're they're not really going to enforce it because the law was written so poorly i'm glad you brought that up because the the truth of the matter is there's entire portions of this law that government can't comply with and they have punked it on and said well we're really not going to enforce this or we're going to set a date 18 months from now and start enforcing it then and guess what that date has come and gone and they still don't have they still can't implement the law and so what they're saying is you better follow the law we don't have to it's rules for you know us but not for you or not for us but for you and if you don't comply you'll go to jail because that's what they've already shown with all the prosecutions for people with these technical violations. And I think what Kendall brings up is very important because it shows the confusion that has been sewn into the system. There's not a DA, a defense lawyer, a judge, a prosecutor, a lawmaker that could all agree on what chapter 135 says, how it should be implemented, and how it should be enforced. And it was, what, more than 100 pages of legalese for this law, right? Yeah, 120-odd pages. And I welcome anyone to read the last 40 pages of the Red Book. If you can make heads or tails of that, you can help me because you'll be able to download me. You won't get past the first three paragraphs and go, I have no idea what this is. And the entire law is written that way. It's actually not a defect. It is the actual feature of the bill, which is to make everyone be completely in the dark so that they can arbitrarily. I had a police officer tell me the other day, this is the scariest thing. This should make the hair on the back of every American's neck stand up. He asked me about some of the nuance of Chapter 135. And I said, honest to God, I couldn't even begin to tell you what that means. He goes, yeah, we don't know either. He goes, I guess we'll arrest and let the courts figure it out. Correct. That's what I've been hearing, too, is they've just been writing the charges and saying, let the courts figure it out. So with about a minute and a half, two minutes left to go, I just want to make sure I understand. So prior to 2024, Massachusetts had some of the strictest gun laws in the nation when it comes to assault rifles, magazines, whatever. You know, we have some of the lowest gun crime rates in the country here. and the new law that came out in 2024 is 120 something pages of confusion it sounds like even law departments law enforcement departments are confused on how it is so voting no would just go back two years to what we had in place prior to the future the same strict laws with no confusion right did i boil it down pretty well there's still some confusion yeah but um but did i did i boil it down pretty pretty succinctly yeah yeah that's exactly right that's all we're asking of the public is to say, you know what, this law was poorly written, and it's a one-way ticket for good people to go to jail, rather than focus on, you could make society safer tomorrow without passing a single law, without infringing on anyone's rights, all by enforcing the laws on the books and putting the violent criminal element in jail for as long as the law allows. That'll make us safer, and you don't need to infringe on anybody's rights. Perfect. I cannot thank you both enough for joining me today. A fantastic conversation. I now know a lot more about guns and the law than I did a half an hour ago, so thank you both very much for joining me. It was wonderful chatting with you. Thank you so much. Thanks for having us. This is 22 News in Focus with Patrick Berry.