MA Ranked 3rd Worst State for Gun Owners
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
"It's a really complicated situation here in Massachusetts. The laws are literally so convoluted," said Jim Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners' Action League (GOAL), a grassroots organization based in Northborough and the official state association of the National Rifle Association (NRA) in the Bay State.
"I've had several legislators in the State House ask me to put together a PowerPoint presentation (outlining the state's gun laws). I said that would take about 8 hours."
Bay State not friendly to gun owners
Guns & Ammo based their assessment on five criteria: concealed carry regulations; restrictions on so-called "modern sporting rifles" or MSRs, a class of semi-automatic rifles; restrictions on weapons classified under the National Firearms Act (NFA), such as machine guns, suppressors and short-barreled rifles; state Stand Your Ground laws or Castle Doctrines regarding the use of a firearm in self-defense both inside and outside of the home; and miscellaneous factors, such as the state's culture and its relation to firearms or additional restrictions on weapons, ammunition or magazines. Each criteria was scored on a scale of 1 to 10, for a maximum total score of 50 points.
The Commonwealth was also home to the third-lowest percentage of gun owners, according to Guns & Ammo, at just 12.6 percent of the population.
The only states to score lower than Mass. were New Jersey (49th), New York (50th) and Washington, D.C. (51st).
In New England, Connecticut ranked 45th, Rhode Island ranked 42nd, Maine finished 29th, New Hampshire was 10th, and Vermont came in as the 2nd best state for gun owners in 2013, with a score of 49 points, missing a perfect 50 due to the lack of specific laws regarding the Castle Doctrine in the Green Mountain State.
"It's certainly not something to be proud of," said Brent Carlton, president of the grassroots organization Commonwealth Second Amendment (Comm2A), in regard to Mass. place near the bottom.
Range of licenses with their own issues
Wallace explained the Commonwealth's four main levels of licenses ranging from a restricted Firearms Identification (FID) card, which is needed to carry pepper spray and the standard FID, which is good for rifles and shotguns that are not high capacity.
For those two licenses, said Wallace, if applicants meet the statutory requirements, they automatically get the license.
However, the state's License to Carry (LTC) Class A, for almost any firearm except machine guns, and Class B, for long guns, both high-capacity and not, and non-high capacity handguns, licenses are discretionary licenses.
"The B and the A can be restricted or denied for virtually any reason," Wallace said, noting that applicants can go to court to appeal the denial of their application, but the burden is on the citizen to prove they are suitable for the license.
"Most other states, if you're eligible for the license you get the license. Massachusetts is one of the strange state's where it's up to the citizen to basically yourself not guilty."
State vs. local licensing authorities
Wallace also noted issues with license renewal for those that do receive them. While state law says renewing a firearm license can take no longer than 40 days, Wallace said that GOAL members are currently waiting anywhere from four to eight months to have their licenses renewed.
The discrepancy arises in from the fact that the state mandated licenses are processed and issued by local police chiefs in the state's 351 cities and towns. And each one of those 351 police chiefs has their own standards for issuing licenses, said Carlton.
Baseline requirements include an application, a $100 fee and passage of a safety course, but Carlton said some local police chiefs require that applicants go further, requiring up to five reference letters and even a note from a psychiatrist in some cases.
"It results in a great deal of disparity from town to town," he said. "Your rights as a gun owner could vary dramatically."
"The state blames the town, the town blames the state, and if you're trying to be a lawfully licensed gun owner, there's no one to complain to," Wallace said. "It's a system designed to be broken."
Comm2A has taken legal action in some cases, and earlier this year the group and six Mass. residents filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of restrictions placed on the LTC issued by Worcester Chief of Police Gary Gemme and his counterparts in the towns of Weymouth, Danvers and Peabody. In the suit, the plaintiffs alleged that they were were denied their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms because the police chiefs imposed unreasonable and unlawful licensing restrictions on them.
Related Articles
- “Goods for Guns” Born out of Worcester Doctor’s Tragedy
- Central Mass Tea Party Up In Arms Over Gun Control
- Investigation: Gun Permits Skyrocketing in Central MA
- Leonardo Angiulo: Two Supreme Court Decisions Shaping the Gun Control Debate
- MA Firearm Instructors: Protect Schools With Guns, Legalize Assault Rifles
- McGovern Pushes for Action at Worcester Gun Violence Forum
- Worcester Coalition Rallies Support for Stricter Gun Laws
Enjoy this post? Share it with others.
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Comments:
Iron Mike Farquhar
8:29am on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Is any thinking person surprised that Massachusetts has made a nearly unnavigable morass of it's gun laws?
This state has made an utter mess of nearly everything the Legislature has touched – and they touch EVERYthing they see.
Over time we chased away the very companies that led the Industrial Revolution – to where our 110 colleges, our hospitals, our state employees [16 per/sq mile], and our illegal welfare EBT cardholders all now count as 'industry'.
This once-proud State where patriots faced down British troops at Salem, Lexington, Concord, Bunker Hill, and the Dorchester Heights – where religion, patriotism, courage, and guns gave birth to our Free Republic...
...well these modern-day liberals have pilloried religion, scorned patriots, abandoned courage and virtually outlawed guns.
And are we any safer? Any more secure in our homes? Hardly!
Once-thriving industrial powerhouses, - Boston, Fall River, New Bedford, Brockton, Worcester, Springfield, Pittsfield, Lawrence, Lowell, and Haverhill are all hotbeds of gang violence and mindless crime – meaning that honest citizens NEED guns.
We've replaced self reliance and guns with grief counselors and victim's advocates. A very poor trade.
Stephen Jacoby
8:54am on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Once again, a completely biased article written by someone with an agenda. What is missing here (and from most discussions on gun safety and regulations) is the FACT that states with robust regulation of firearms have significantly lower gun violence rates than those that do not. Take for instance Arizona, a state with a population virtually identical to Massachusetts (AZ has just a few thousand less people), but with far less gun regulation. In 2011:
Murders using firearms: AZ 222 MA 122
Firearms Murder Rate: AZ 3.53 MA 2.02
Firearms Robbery Rate: AZ 50.24 MA 27.84
Firearms Assault Rate AZ 57.36 MA 33.19
The numbers speak for themselves.
Harry Huckum
9:14am on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Once again, a completely irrelevant comment by a liberal with an anti gun pro enslavement agenda.
Arizona is on the border with a drug producing country.
The murder rate is irrelevant. What is relevant is who is committing the murders. And it is not law abiding gun owners. I guarantee that if AZ has the same gun regulations as MA their murder rate would be sky high. The only thing that gun control does is create more sheep for the wolves to prey upon.
Iron Mike Farquhar
9:50am on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Ya'know Harry,...you'd think that Messrs Drici and Jacoby are collaborators [conspirators] in this anti-gun / anti-Constitution movement.
I wonder which is the most gun-phobic?
Are they brave [foolish] enough to publish their home addresses and let the world [at least Worcester] know they are at home unarmed?
As for Arizona – I lived there for 14 years.... Everybody had guns, and crime was at a minimum. Even the NY City Mafia families used Tucson as a war-free safe zone. Then Americans discovered heroin and cocaine...and cheap Mexican labor....
Today the Obama administration has signs up to keep people out of our own National Parks – because they've become smuggling routes guarded by the Cartels...
Don't go to Arizona without a gun! And unlike this state, - don't expect a cop to show up within minutes of your desperate call for help...
Rob Webb
10:41am on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Oh Stephen, I bet you think you are clever, don't you...
It is disengunous at best, insidious at worst to manipulate statistics the way you have, focusing on a subset of violence in order to make a claim of increased safety. Of COURSE you can, in some cases, argue that reducing the availability of guns has driven down gun-SPECIFIC violence (but not all cases, ie Chicago, DC). But that is not the goal of a civilized society. We should be attempting to reduce ALL violence, and unfortunately for you, the very same stats bear out that with your "decreases" in gun violence we see increases in crime and violence across the board.
By your logic, we could reduce the number of motor vehicle airbag deaths by making it harder for people to get airbags in cars. Or we could lower the hospital-specific infant mortality rate by making it impossible for infants to enter a hospital until they are toddlers!
See the problem here? Again, when your focus is too narrow, you mis-identify the problem and enact "solutions" that completely ignore the actual problem.
You want to advocate for increased training and education? I'll have your back. But once people get that training, and demonstrate proficiency, you need to abandon these silly restrictions and treat your fellow citizens like the adults that they are.
Stephen Jacoby
11:11am on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Since you're all so used to making excuses whenever the facts don't match your ideology, let's look at other similarly sized states that are nowhere near the Mexican border.
Tennessee, Indiana, and Missouri each have roughly the same size population as Massachusetts, all have less restrictions on firearms, and ALL have a much higher rate of gun violence than does Massachusetts. We have 3/4 the gun violence of Louisiana, which is only 3/4 our size.
Robb - I take your point, but let's look at YOUR argument. South Carolina, which is one of the states that makes it the easiest to get a gun, ranks number one in OVERALL violent crime (with or without a gun) and number 13 in gun violence (we're number 20 and 31 respectively). Tennessee (see above) is number 2!
But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of any of your beliefs.
Stephen Jacoby
11:25am on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Lastly - I've said this before and I'll say it again here: I am not necessarily anti-gun. (Although I believe some types of firearms should be banned, specifically those that are capable of firing in large volume.) What I insist is fair and realistic is to have thorough background checks on ANYONE buying a gun ANYWHERE, having a significant (30 days) waiting period, mandatory training for each type of gun owned (with regularly scheduled renewals), requiring all NEW guns to be manufactured with a biometric trigger lock, and registration of each gun with law enforcement (including a ballistics test) so it can be traced if it's used in a crime. Only the lunatic "the UN is coming to invade my house and take my guns" fringe could possibly find anything wrong with these rules.
Iron Mike Farquhar
11:36am on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
A funny thing is going to happen to you Stephen, - you're going to grow old,...and feeble...
And all around you predators will be watching,...waiting...
Slowly it will dawn on you that you're really no longer 'perfectly safe' in your home, or as you go to the local stores....
...and you'll want to arm yourself.
Do you currently own a gun? Is it loaded and ready to defend you?
Have you EVER even fired a gun? Or....are you restricted by Mass laws from owning a gun?
LASTLY,...please explain how you PERSONALLY feel threatened by guns in the hands of your law-abiding neighbors...?
Harry Huckum
11:51am on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Let's face it guys. Messr. Jacoby is one of the left's useful idiots.
And you know what they say about them. Once the dictators take over, the first one's they liquidate is the useful idiots, as they are no longer needed and they are easily eliminated.
Have a great day.
Iron Mike Farquhar
11:57am on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Harry, - do you mean that Obama will declare Steven to be a 'Shovel-Ready Idiot'? Ooh, creepy! Will they bury him, - with an Obama sticker on his coffin; - or go the wood-chipper route?
Rob Webb
11:57am on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
LOL did you really just imply correlation between non-gun violence in two states, with the ease of obtaining a gun in those states? Non-compos mentis perhaps?
Clearly, you are putting the cart before the horse, the tool does not inspire violence. Violent people use tools. You make my argument for me, though. If you reduce the overall violence and violent crime, obviously the incidence of gun-specific violence and crime will drop as well.
Instead of focusing on inanimate objects, how about we be intellectually honest and have a discussion about the real causes of violence, those taboo subjects like education, poverty, culture (both racial and geographic)? I acknowledge that to do so wont get anyone RE-elected, but the time to posture and deflect has come and gone, its time to roll our sleeves up and address these tough issues that weak people are too scared to talk about.
Re: your solutions, again, how will these stop MOST violence? I can also see how biometrics could be a problem, since they are not fail-safe, I see them glitch all the time, and they couldnt be cost effective AND 100% reliable at the same time. Im not willing to risk anyones life on that. Also, what if the owner is incapacitated and a wife or child need to operate it? I can give more than a few examples where dependents had to defend themselves with the "family" weapon.
Firing in large volume? One pull of the trigger = one bullet. Thats what we can have. To have anything greater than that, you either have a Class 3 LIcense from the BATF, or you own a shotgun (which Trigger Biden says we should all use!).
In case you dont know, a single 12g 00 buck shotshell blast fires 9-12 .33 caliber bullets with 1 pull of the trigger. Which means that a typical hunting shotgun can fire 60-90 such projectiles on a full magazine. An AR15 shoots one .223 caliber bullet, and can only shoot 20-30 utilizing STANDARD capacity magazines. Math skills help.
30 days? How will this stop criminals? And how will this make anyone safer than a 10 day? is there scientific evidence that shows people need that extra 20 days to cool off? How about 6 months? 1 yr? Again, arbitrary feel-good math no scientific or rational explanation.
Mandatory training - I would semi-agree with you here. Instead of per weapon, I'd recommend by CLASS of weapon (handgun, rifle, shotgun, airgun. Thats it. But training must be performed by other civilians in private schools, not government. But regular renewals? Not sure I'm with you on that, unless its a free test included in the cost of a standard license renewal, which can be opted out of if they show they have been training on their own during the renewal interval.
Ballistics tests- Yes and no, but only done by the manufacturer, and only registered by serial number, not owner. Keep it anonymous UNTIL it needs to be traced. Not the other way around. Every gun can be traced to a dealer, and from there, dealers can provide buyer records if subpeonad. No need to add to the bureacracy and skirt the 4th amendment, and, whether you believe it or not, your idea WILL contribute to a "confiscation" mindset. There are people that want to confiscate, we saw that in the NY hearings. They only need the means.
So, I'm not a lunatic on any fringe, yet I disagree with you on most of these. Less character assasination, more logic and reasoning, please.
Stephen Jacoby
12:00pm on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
It's pretty sad how you jump to conclusions. I own two guns, both of which are kept loaded, but locked in a cabinet for which I have the only key. It is also set up with a biometric lock so I can open it quickly in an emergency. When I was in boot camp in the 70's, I was the best shot in the company with both a rifle and a .45. And I am not the least bit threatened by law-abiding citizens with guns. I am one, and we're not the problem. It's the crazies and quick-draw cowboys that scare the crap out of me, and I want to make it as difficult as possible for them to get their hands on a gun.
Stephen Jacoby
12:01pm on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
"Harry" - clearly one of the aforementioned lunatic fringe.
Stephen Jacoby
12:13pm on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Robb - you make some pretty sane arguments. Sorry for lumping you in with the others. We could clearly come to some compromise between our two positions. Wish we could actually talk about it and have it mean something to those that make the rules.
Iron Mike Farquhar
12:17pm on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
We teach driving in high school, - why not gun safety and shooting?
Why don't schools have varsity shooting teams?
Harry Huckum
12:24pm on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
The lunatics are the ones that think that gun control on law abiding citizens has any thing to do with controlling violent criminals, who could not care about laws in the first place.
I don't subscribe to the term Gun Control. It is only about one thing. Keep the guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.
Rob Webb
12:31pm on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
The problem, Stephen, is that the media and political panels never interview or invite people like me. I make too much sense.
Harry Huckum
2:52pm on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. So it’s not that you are anti-gun. You’ll need the police’s guns to take away other people’s guns. So you’re very Pro-Gun, you just believe that only the Government (which is, of course, so reliable, honest, moral and virtuous…) should be allowed to have guns. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political elite and their minions.
DO NOT ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO HAVE A MONOPOLY ON FORCE.
Stephen Jacoby
2:59pm on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
....and the lunatic fringe is heard from again. Better check the chinstrap on your foil hat there buddy. The voices are starting to creep in again.
Iron Mike Farquhar
4:05pm on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Here is your final exam on Gun Control Stephen:
Let's say [actually God Forbid] that somebody entered your home when you weren't there to secure your firearm from your biometric lock...
...and they slaughtered your family,...with guns....
Would you favor the Death Penalty,...or let them off with Life...?
I ask, because I feel if you're not serious about the Death Penalty for certain crimes, - anything else you say is mere liberal yapping,...and looking for attention...like accusing solid citizens of wearing a tin foil hat. That's childish!
Harry Huckum
4:28pm on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Jacoby,
You are a major league phony and a liberal idiot.
Look at Washington DC and Chicago. Strictest gun laws and highest violent murder rate. Washington DC is more dangerous than Iraq.
Go crawl back inside your EBT card and STFU.
BTW, MA is 7th highest on crime in the nation. It was another article done here that you claimed had an agenda. What is it, if you don't like a message you claim it is a lie and someone agenda. MA is a shit hole. High for welfare, High for Crime, High for expenses in retirement, low in transparency, low in freedom.
Most smart folks are leaving or planning to leave (like me).
Stephen Jacoby
5:18pm on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Farquhar - I am anti-death penalty in all cases - period. Far too many innocent people have been executed and mistakes are too frequently made. I would rather put every mass-murderer in jail for life without parole than execute one innocent person.
Huckum - Good riddance.
Stephen Jacoby
5:22pm on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
btw.... DC and Chicago are urban centers with highly concentrated populations. Of course they skew the numbers!!
Rob Webb
5:44pm on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
DING DING DING DING DING! Gunner, tell him what he's won!
Stephen, ALL urban centers skew the numbers. Gun Violence isnt statistically significant OUTSIDE urban areas. If you look at the murder rate for the USA after removing 50-50 top urban cities, its the lowest in the WORLD. Additionally, most of those urban areas already have strict gun laws.
So if the problem only exists in the urban areas, how will applying blanket laws to non-urban areas help?
Please, help me understand that logic, bc I fail to see it.
Rob Webb
5:45pm on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Sorry, should be "the 50-60", not "50-50"
Iron Mike Farquhar
6:06pm on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Thirteen-plus years ago Stephen, Michael 'Mucko' McDermott spent days planning the murders he committed at Edgewater Technology – over a tax problem...
He killed 7 people – executed them with shots to the back of the head.
If you're still glad he's eating your food – for life, - instead of feeding worms,...then you have no [ZERO] credibility when talking about crime or preventing violence.
Stephen Jacoby
6:13pm on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
I'll use smaller syllables so you can understand what I'm saying. He did it. He's guilty. I would rather pay for his meals - and those for every other guilty scumbag out there - than to have one innocent person executed. You, on the other hand, would rather kill a few hundred (that we know of) innocent people just so you can save a few bucks and feed your bloodlust? Asshole.
Iron Mike Farquhar
6:33pm on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Mister Jacoby! You've quickly sunk to potty talk! Tisk-tisk!
Perhaps you are too unstable to own firearms...? It seems you cannot be trusted around a computer....
Stephen Jacoby
6:57pm on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
I call them like I see them. I stand by my statement.
Christopher Pinto
12:05pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Massachusetts Gun Laws are so screwed up that a police chief has written a 400 page book and gives a class to law enforcement officers on how to understand the law. LEOs need a class to understand the law. WTF? That speaks volumes to how badly these laws are written.
Given that, do you think that maybe regular citizens who are well meaning might become criminals based on interpretations of the law all while they were making every effort to stay within the law?
Rep George Peterson of Grafton has been working for two years to get our gun laws simplified and correct to emphasize punishment of the criminals and not the law abiding folks, but the legislature won't budge on the issue.
http://www.massfirearmsschool.com/class/understanding-firearms-law-with-chief-ron-glidden/
http://massgunlawreform.com/
Christopher Pinto
12:23pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
This just in...
Florida firearm violence hits record low; concealed gun permits up
http://www.abc15.com//dpp/news/national/florida-firearm-violence-hits-record-low-concealed-gun-permits-up
C Norris
6:22pm on Thursday, March 21, 2013
Scarey looking guns need to be banned. Guns that shoot 6 million bullets in 3 seconds should be banned. To save the children of course.
Wait, you say over … of gun deaths are from pistols and not scarey looking black rifles? You mean ARs aren't killing little kids everyday in preschools?
you say its the thugs and gangs in the inner cities that are responsible for over 500 killings in Chicago last yr? Doesn't Chicago have a gun ban? So how would a.... Ohhhh I get it now....
People kill people. I get it now.... Lets ban the cities and we wont have any problems!!!
C Norris
5:53pm on Wednesday, April 03, 2013
Jacoby, you forgot to mention when debating MA vs AZ, the tens of thousands of illegal immigrants who dont fill out a census form (or care about laws seeing as though they are illegal in the first place) to bring AZ's numbers up. Nice try.