I had a conversation the other day with Dave, a childhood friend of mine. Having grown up in Colorado we never gave guns a second thought, never realized that they could be taken away by the government, and never fathomed that people could be kept from owning them because of their zip code.
Unfortunately in Massachusetts that is a reality, we were talking about the shooting sports and his new Springfield Armory XDm 5.25 in 9mm. I mentioned that I’d love to get one of those, but can’t because it’s not legal for a dealer to transfer it in MA. When he asked me why, I explained to him the reality of living in MA, how the legislators, courts, and AG’s have for decades conspired against the Civil Rights of gun owners. Things like the state AG deciding that handguns need to be approved for sale in MA, and in order to be made safe they needed to have features like 10+ pound trigger pulls, and loaded chamber indicators. The manufacturers also need to send up to 5 samples to the state for testing, before they can get approved. After I got done explaining this to him, he asked me incredulously, “How do any of those things make them safer?” I replied that they don’t, they just limit what can be transferred, and therefore, owned in Massachusetts. “It’s for the children” after all, that’s the mantra.
I went on to tell him how every year our Governor, Deval Patrick reacts to violent crime in the inner city by trying to restrict the sale of guns to licensed owners, by pushing one gun a month bills, and other anti-2A legislation. Once again, he was incredulous and asked “How is keeping people from legally buying guns stopping murders in the inner city?” I replied that it doesn’t, it’s just a sham to give him talking points so he can make his voters think he cares and is doing something for them. Then I told him a couple of real doozies, about how in MA your liberties are restricted by zip code. “You gotta be kidding me!” He replied, to which I rebutted, no, you really can’t make it up, the state legislators and the MA Chiefs of Police have set up the licensing system so that every town and cities’ Chief of Police has final say on not only who gets a license, but what that license allows. Some people with an unrestricted license to carry can move to the next town over, and upon renewal of their license find they are no longer legally able to do so. The chiefs even have the power to deny a license just because they feel like it! It’s called “chiefs discretion” and they do it all the time, if they don’t like someone, for whatever reason, even if they have a clean record they can be denied. Some cities, like Worcester, Boston, and Springfield refuse to issue an “All Lawful Purpose” license to carry! Despite numerous statistics that show more guns = less crime, they continue to restrict the rights of their citizens.
At this point, I could just about hear him shaking his head in disgust; he asked the million dollar question. “Let me put the pieces together here, the state is against citizens carrying guns, and knows it has a crime problem in the inner city, right?” Yup, they sure do and they sure are. “I’m guessing that like most inner cities, yours are mostly comprised of people of color, correct?” Yup, they sure are. “Then I can only conclude that your gun laws are racist, and meant to keep the inner city residents from owning guns!” You know what Dave, it sure seems that way. He then laughed, and asked “wait, isn’t Deval black?” Uhmm, yes, he sure is. “And the people in the inner city put up with that, and let him walk all over their Civil Rights?” Don’t ask me why Dave, the only thing I can think of is they’re conditioned by years of nanny state programs doing everything for them. The community leaders should be at the State House asking why he’s allowing their Civil Rights to be stomped on, and instead they’re trying to enact more social engineering, it’s really unbelievable.
I then went on to tell him about the Massachusetts State Supreme Court, and how it still refuses to recognize the Second Amendment as a Civil Right, despite the McDonald Decision, and how Attorney General Martha Coakley still cites the Cruikshank Decision when she wants to press charges on a citizen arrested for improper storage, or “illegal possession” of a firearm. Dave, at this point could take no longer, and said so, by asking a very poignant question. “Mike, I have to ask, why do you stay in Massachusetts?”
I had no answer.