Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumNew study rattles gun lobby
Note: this OP was inspired by research done in response to friendly_iconoclast's OP:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172181919
which was inspired by research done in response to Kang Colby's OP:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172181197
Contrary to rabidly held beliefs of the gun lobby, more restrictive gun regulations actually increase the number of concealed carry licenses.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
ileus
(15,396 posts)
So what reason would folks have to buy and carry if the laws are more restirctive? Hint, it's not because restrictions are good.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)in order to purchase a handgun. That's not the case in Texas. I realize SecMo is just making a joke, and there is nothing wrong with that. SecMo's post is funny, because I was expecting another "study" from Daniel Webster or David Hemenway.
The few states with "may issue" carry statutes still in place all have draconian gun control laws. Several of these states have made it nearly impossible to get a CCW permit.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Prior to 2014, if a person wished to obtain a license to carry a handgun they would have
had to ask the local chief of police. If the chief said no, they had no recourse aside from
asking their local county sheriff which were notorious for issuing LTCs to their friends, cronies,
and campaign contributors. Licenses for shotguns and rifles were 'shall issue', barring
legal prohibitions identical to the Federal ones found on a Form 4473.
Now (in a judo move organized by gun owners that even you might admire),
all persons wishing to legally buy *any* gun must undergo fingerprinting,
pass a background check and get permission from the local chief of police.
The jokers in the deck for persons of your ilk come from three things:
1. A person denied a license that is not DQ'd according to Federal law can appeal that
denial, and the burden of proof is on the cops to show why the applicant shouldn't get
a license.
Several judges have already answered appeals by persons denied in the affirmative, and at least one such decision has cited the Heller decision in their own finding. So getting a gun license
is now de facto 'shall issue' in Massachusetts, and the most a control-happy top cop
can do is slow (but not stop) an otherwise-qualified applicant.
2. The General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (AKA 'the state legislature')
in its infinite wisdom made Class A licenses (AKA 'license to carry') subject to the very
same regulations, save for the addition of a test of legal knowledege and optional
range tests. The cost is the same as the less-restrictive FID (for rifles and shotguns)
Not being especially stupid, most firearm license applicants opted to get
Class A licenses, so now most firearm license holders are licensed to carry concealed handguns.
3. As a plus, the number of gun license holders in MA has increased over the last five years
at a rate that has far outstripped the rate of population growth-and most of them now can carry
concealed handguns.
Your attempt at turd-polishing, while valiant, was futile
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)the change was in the license requirements.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...if the Boston Globe is to be believed. Note that the rise in the number of concealed carry
licensees outstripped the population growth rate even before the new laws passed :
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/04/20/gun-laws-tightened-mass-number-permits-spiked/KDbdE52Cvdf4xNfIL4r0hN/story.html
Overall, the number of active gun licenses of all types grew 5 percent, with a total of 355,272 in the state last year.
All but five of Massachusetts’ 351 towns and cities saw increases in the number of active Class A licenses from 2013 and to 2014...
...Last year’s spike in Class A licenses followed lesser annual increases with a median of 5 percent over the past several years. Since 2008, the number of these licenses has grown in all but two Massachusetts municipalities, Gosnold and Chesterfield. In 11 communities, including Boston, the number has more than doubled.
A side note: Gosnold is an island with few inhabitants and Chesterfield is a wide spot in the
road in a decidedly rural part of Western Massachusetts
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)Class A licenses “allows him or her to carry not only a concealed weapon but loaded, large-capacity handguns, rifles, and shotguns without limits on use.”
The Class B license, which was eliminated by the new law, prohibited concealed carry, but allowed the purchasing of any weapon, permitted under a Class A (concealed carry) license–with the exception of a “large-capacity handgun.” No one really had these, which is why it was axed last summer. The Massachusetts Gun Owners’ Action League noted on their website that a Class B license holder is “forbidden to carry ‘concealed and loaded on a public way.’ That means the person is denied the right to self-defense outside the home.” Also, you’re prohibited from transporting a loaded firearm with a Class B license–and it’s “required to have the gun unloaded and locked in a case or in the trunk.”
Lastly, a Firearm Identification Card allows a resident to buy and own “small-capacity” shotguns and rifles. Handgun purchases are prohibited.
Regardless, separate permits to buy different classes of firearms, with varying degrees of carrying rights. It’s nonsense–and one could make the argument that it’s constitutionally questionable. Nevertheless, good on the Bay State for applying for permits that exercise their Second Amendment rights–even if they do come with absurd restrictions.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2015/04/22/massachusetts-new-guns-laws-sparked-concealed-carry-permit-surge-n1989056
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Again, from the Globe:
Last year’s spike in Class A licenses followed lesser annual increases with a median of 5 percent over the past several years.
That's higher than the rate of population growth. Note also that getting a Class A covers
every firearm covered by the more-restrictive permits. If someone simply wants a
rifle or shotgun, they could have gotten a FID card and skipped the approval folderol
altogether. I'd say that shows Massachusetts gun owners wanted the right to carry all along,
and were willing to tolerate the chance that an anti-gun police chief would turn them down
without recourse. Now that a turn-down can be appealed, more are applying for
Class A licenses.
I also note your use of Town Hall as a source. I take they're now on the 'approved' list...
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)Well, if they were being consistent, they'd blame the questions.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)...given the various licensing requirements that some states have, it's probably easier to just get a CCW permit.
That is what I'm going to do. I wouldn't have bothered, but now I have to go to the state police and get a special state-issued ID from the same government that issued my driver's license just to buy ammo. Why? Why isn't my driver's license enough?
So I'm going to get a CCW permit just do I don't have to deal with bullshit.
