I
wanted to contact you again to try to explain a bit further the problem gun
owners have now with the current ability of the chiefs to limit permits.
If
you want more info on this a quick google of “Mass gun permits per town” brings
up many article including ones from the Boston Globe about how mixed up our permitting
process is. Here is a link to a map
showing how where you live makes a huge difference as to your ability to get a
gun permit : http://www.hubflyer.com/wp-content/uploads/macitytowngun.png
This is hardly treating everyone the same under the law. Also please note most of the state is green
on the map which are towns that respect our rights and issue permits. It is those few red towns that are the
problem and are rejecting or restricting permits to people that have passed the
background checks and have a clean record . . .
I
know the claim is that the chiefs want to restrict folks who may cause harm –
we all want that. If that is what they
did I would still expect to see a fairly even distribution of permits issued
all over the state as most people are not a problem.
That
is not what we have. There was a recent
WBUR post on this where the Chief of Police in Boston outright state people of
Boston don’t need rifles or shotguns. He
says nothing about harm or injury or anything else other than he does not think
they need that right so won’t issue permits.
I
am an NRA and State Police certified instructor in MA. I have had a number of reports from people in
my gun club and at class that the town I grew up in – Scituate MA – has gone
from issuing permits to carry to not issuing.
People that have had carry permits for years now get restricted to target
and hunting just because a new chief of police has been hired in the town.
Please
tell me how that makes sense? Your right
to carry has been taken when you have done nothing wrong and have had that
carry permit for years.
The
other point of this is by putting restrictions of “Target and Hunting only” on
a pistol permit which is what normally happens in these cases only means you
can’t carry concealed. You can still buy
the same guns and ammo that you could with an unrestricted license. If you are dangerous (as the proponents of
this rule say) to the point they want to restrict your license why are they
issuing it at all? If I have criminal intent
I can still get what I want on the restricted permit. . . .
This
is why gun owners are so against letting the FID be up to the Chief. I have seen no data that the current ability
of the Chiefs to restrict pistol permits has made us any safer, but it is being
abused. For a select few towns and
cities lawful citizens with clean records are being refused permits to carry
because the Chief can while if they lived in the next town over there would be
no issues. Why should they be allowed to
do this with the FID too?
What
gun owners want is a fair law. Every
city and town should have to issue you any permit you ask for unless you are a prohibited
person. I agree we don’t want the guy
down the street that the cops get called on every weekend for domestic disputes
to get a permit. But don’t leave that up
to the Chief, put it in writing – make it the law. We need a hard list that we can all reference
that says “this is what a Prohibited Person is”. And the Chiefs need to be told that if an
applicant for any permit is not on that Prohibited Person list they must issue
the license. This is the only fair way
to address this.
Thank
you for your time.