MA: Legal Gun Ownership Declines 25%
If you’re going to make the requirements too restrictive and expensive, yeah, I guess it would. From the Boston Herald:
Many point to the state’s 1998 Massachusetts Gun Control Act as one of the main reasons for the decline.
It now costs $100 for a six-year license for a handgun, shotgun or rifle. A lifetime permit for a rifle used to cost two dollars. It can also take up to two months to get a license, further discouraging some people from obtaining guns legally.
[…]
Edward Arsenault, 70, of Fairhaven, has owned a gun since the 1980s, but was recently denied a license renewal because he had been convicted in juvenile court of stealing a chicken from a chicken coop when he was 9 years old.
“I have no problem with gun control or background checks, but let’s not get ridiculous,” Arsenault told the Globe.
Arsenault later appealed the decision to New Bedford Court and won, in part thanks to his local police chief Gary Souza, who testified on his behalf.
Arsenault’s lucky his town cop was on his side. Most of the police chiefs in the state are against allowing law abiding citizens to protect themselves. I guess they figure the lobsterbacks are gone for good. . . .
What’s left unsaid, of course, is that the number of illegal guns in the state is increasing. You need only read of the crime stats and gang shootings in Boston and Springfield to realize that.
So, pointing out the obvious, when you make it darn-near impossible for the law abiding to own a firearm, only the criminals will still have them. History repeats itself.
12 Responses to “MA: Legal Gun Ownership Declines 25%”
on 13 Aug 2007 at 8:27 am # jack
So true. But, we need to give credit where it is due. I have lived in Acton, Mass for 40 yrs now and that PD goes by the book. No record and whatever license you want is issued with a smile. Jack.
on 13 Aug 2007 at 9:07 am # Asking Joe
Good observation about the illegal guns Jeff. The article even brings this out. It says:
______________________________
“Some in law enforcement are applauding the decline, but caution that there are still plenty of illegal guns on the streets.
“Fewer firearms on the street makes life safer for everyone,” said Quincy Police Chief Robert Crowley. “The average citizen who has a gun 24-7 I don’t believe has the experience, knowledge and training to know when and if they should use a firearm.” ”
_______________________________
So the effect of further regulating guns is not less guns in the hands of criminals, but less guns in the hands of law abiding citizens. They targeted the good people, not the criminals.
Are we the only ones that see that?
on 13 Aug 2007 at 9:56 am # Quentin
This is just more back-door gun control. Since they can’t get the laws passed through the legislature to ban them outright, they ban them by making them such only the wealthy elites can afford them.
on 13 Aug 2007 at 12:31 pm # HerrBGone
So what they are saying is that if a nine year old kid did something dumb in 1946 that should preclude his ability to exercise his inalienable rights as enshrined in the Constitution of United States in 2007? What kind of world are we allowing the libertards to force us to live in? If we could just get them all to move to Kalifornistan and Marxistchusetts and leave the rest of us alone we’d all be happier! Just let me escape Marxistchusetts before you close the border!
on 13 Aug 2007 at 12:48 pm # Lergnom
The lobsterbacks are gone for good? Jeff, they know that they are the new lobsterbacks, and don’t want the same thing happening to them.
on 13 Aug 2007 at 2:03 pm # Daniel
What I would like to know is why state and local governments are allowed to change the 2nd Amendment to their wants?
I would think that the Constituition, particularly the Bill of RIghts, applies to everyone equally, har har, or is that too much to ask???
on 13 Aug 2007 at 6:26 pm # straightarrow
I can’t say what I think the solution will ultimately be. But it is dire, because the tyrants and would-be tyrants are rapidly approaching the threshold where there is no other option.
on 13 Aug 2007 at 7:14 pm # triticale
Unless he used a firearm in the commission of that chicken theft…
on 13 Aug 2007 at 7:45 pm # Matt
Just remember, this is the same state where our beloved Mitt Romney claims that these laws make people safer. And to think, this jerk MIGHT just become our next president. I liked his comment about how even though none of his five sons have served in the military, they’re serving the country now by helping with his campaign. Not only is that one of the stupidest things I’ve heard in a long time, but they’re actually helping to bring about the demise of the country if this twit gets elected…I’d feel better if they weren’t “serving” me. “I support the 2nd Amendment. I support banning assault weapons.” What an asshole.
on 13 Aug 2007 at 9:06 pm # Jacob
I used to have a unrestricted non-resident MA pistol license. Not anymore.
on 14 Aug 2007 at 4:45 am # Wire
Yes, But it is dire, because the tyrants and would-be tyrants are rapidly approaching the threshold where there is no other option.
on 14 Aug 2007 at 12:18 pm # John in MA
I don’t like the idea that the chiefs have discretion, but to give credit where due would like to point out that vast swaths of MA are essentially “will issue”.