More Gun Control Garbage
Here's what passes for "sensible" gun laws in the enlightened Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and in the City of Boston in particular.
First, Massachusetts is not a "shall-issue" state. This means that even if you meet all the "normal" requirements for obtaining a gun permit, you have absolutely no right to one unless the Chief of Police in the town you live in feels like issuing it. He or she can deny your application for ANY reason he or she deems appropriate. Also, as part of the application process, an applicant must state a specific need or reason for asking the state's permission to carry a gun in Massachusetts. Seems to me that by the time you REALLY need a gun, the waiting time for the processing of your application will of little to no concern to the person seeking to do you harm with his no-permit-required illegal firearm. It's like trying to put on your seatbelt on as the paramedics are trying to extricate your mangled body from the wreckage.
Let's have a look at what one must do to obtain a License to Carry in the City of Boston. Thanks to our mayor and our local liberal politicians, a series of regulations are in place to protect the rights of criminals to prey on unarmed civilians.
First, there's the mandatory firearms safety class ($99 to $250) - here endeth anything that a rational person would describe as "common sense". Next, we have a "mandatory" membership in a firearms club ($200-$300). Note that the current laws do not require this, but allow local officials to impose any restrictions they deem appropriate. And third, an application fee for a License to Carry ($100). So, we're $400 (minimum) into the process, and we're not done yet. Next, the applicant must go to the police firing range at Moon Island and demonstrate proficiency with a .38 revolver on targets at 7-yards (shooting one-handed) and 15-yards. Think you might want to practice a little before taking this test? Better hope that local firearms club you just signed up with will rent handguns to its members for use on their range. And ammo ain't free either.
The city requires you to be proficient with a handgun you are prohibited from even touching in the first place. Further, a License to Carry issued in a western Massachusetts town by a police chief, who feels the right to bear arms actually means something, is 100% valid within the City of Boston. AND, a resident of another state can apply for a non-resident LTC with very few cumbersome restrictions. Only the people who actually LIVE here in Boston and enjoy the higher tax rates are affected by these "common sense" regulations.
Again, these laws do not apply to the criminal element. They remain unfettered in their ability to purchase any firearm they can get their hands on.
These restrictions come as no surprise to anyone who has followed the actions of the gun control lobby for any amount of time. If you can't ban the guns, install a series of bureaucratic and financial hurdles to discourage, if not outright, prohibit the citizens from obtaining a firearm to defend themselves and their families. And whom do these laws affect the most? Poor, inner-city residents, who have the most urgent need to protect themselves from violent crime, and the fewest resources available to fight the bureaucracy that stands between them and their constitutional rights. But the liberal democrats that run this town seem to have no concern for their safety. If you're rich, white, and politically connected, feel free to go about your business, exercising ALL your rights. The rest of you...get in line.
I have written my State Rep and Senator on these issues. No reply yet. I'm stunned.
First, Massachusetts is not a "shall-issue" state. This means that even if you meet all the "normal" requirements for obtaining a gun permit, you have absolutely no right to one unless the Chief of Police in the town you live in feels like issuing it. He or she can deny your application for ANY reason he or she deems appropriate. Also, as part of the application process, an applicant must state a specific need or reason for asking the state's permission to carry a gun in Massachusetts. Seems to me that by the time you REALLY need a gun, the waiting time for the processing of your application will of little to no concern to the person seeking to do you harm with his no-permit-required illegal firearm. It's like trying to put on your seatbelt on as the paramedics are trying to extricate your mangled body from the wreckage.
Let's have a look at what one must do to obtain a License to Carry in the City of Boston. Thanks to our mayor and our local liberal politicians, a series of regulations are in place to protect the rights of criminals to prey on unarmed civilians.
First, there's the mandatory firearms safety class ($99 to $250) - here endeth anything that a rational person would describe as "common sense". Next, we have a "mandatory" membership in a firearms club ($200-$300). Note that the current laws do not require this, but allow local officials to impose any restrictions they deem appropriate. And third, an application fee for a License to Carry ($100). So, we're $400 (minimum) into the process, and we're not done yet. Next, the applicant must go to the police firing range at Moon Island and demonstrate proficiency with a .38 revolver on targets at 7-yards (shooting one-handed) and 15-yards. Think you might want to practice a little before taking this test? Better hope that local firearms club you just signed up with will rent handguns to its members for use on their range. And ammo ain't free either.
The city requires you to be proficient with a handgun you are prohibited from even touching in the first place. Further, a License to Carry issued in a western Massachusetts town by a police chief, who feels the right to bear arms actually means something, is 100% valid within the City of Boston. AND, a resident of another state can apply for a non-resident LTC with very few cumbersome restrictions. Only the people who actually LIVE here in Boston and enjoy the higher tax rates are affected by these "common sense" regulations.
Again, these laws do not apply to the criminal element. They remain unfettered in their ability to purchase any firearm they can get their hands on.
These restrictions come as no surprise to anyone who has followed the actions of the gun control lobby for any amount of time. If you can't ban the guns, install a series of bureaucratic and financial hurdles to discourage, if not outright, prohibit the citizens from obtaining a firearm to defend themselves and their families. And whom do these laws affect the most? Poor, inner-city residents, who have the most urgent need to protect themselves from violent crime, and the fewest resources available to fight the bureaucracy that stands between them and their constitutional rights. But the liberal democrats that run this town seem to have no concern for their safety. If you're rich, white, and politically connected, feel free to go about your business, exercising ALL your rights. The rest of you...get in line.
I have written my State Rep and Senator on these issues. No reply yet. I'm stunned.
