Would you like to join my mailing list? Just enter your email below to sign up!

Concealed Carry

Continued from page one: If discretion is the common denominator being exercised by each town and city, then it is far from consistent, and on a broad scale, being used irresponsibly by many in positions of authority. There needs to be simple criteria, set in positive law, from Boston to Lenox and from Gloucester to Province town, without variation, so that anyone anywhere knows what to expect when applying for any gun permit. As it stands now it appears extremely arbitrary, simply because it is.

   The blame for this falls directly at the feet of the legislature, and I am asking you as a legislator, and my Representative, to propose the bill that will correct the problem. I do not believe anyone should point out a problem without offering what could be a viable solution or solutions to a problem. As with an FID, (firearms identification card) there should be set reasons to deny: 1. Having been convicted of a felony within the last five years. 2. Having a record of drug or habitual drunkenness within the last five years. 3. Having been confined to any hospital or institution for mental illness unless he/she has an affidavit from a physician stating that he/she is not disabled in a manner which should prevent his/her possessing a handgun rifle or shotgun. 4. If there is a current restraining order in effect, with gun ownership reinstated after it is vacated or expires. 5. There should be an appeal process should a ‘rogue’ town invent its own law(s) outside of set law. 6. There should be considered an exemption to the age requirement of ’21’ for anyone serving in the armed forces for a pistol permit. These responsible young men and women put their lives on the line daily so that we may enjoy our freedoms, yet they are not shown the courtesy of obtaining a pistol permit in Massachusetts. No veteran, past or present, should need to pay for any firearms permit, they have already paid through their service to our country.

   I would be very surprised if there was not broad bipartisan support for this exemption. There should not be restrictions such as ‘target and hunting only’, “any or all lawful purposes” covers target and hunting if one wishes to do so, and does not infringe on ones right to self defense, as ‘target and hunting only’ does. People have a right to personal protection, and there is no provision in the Constitution for government to arbitrarily place restrictions on that right. This is where law makers have a bipartisan opportunity to demonstrate that they actually understood their oath to office. {Note; continued on page three…..} written 3-9-2006

Leave a Reply