The city council and police superintendent in Lowell, Massachusetts are in hot water with Second Amendment advocates over new gun regulations that require applicants for an unrestricted gun license to carry to “state in writing” why they should get the license.
Jim Wallace, executive director of the Massachusetts Gun Owners Action League (GOAL) has likened the requirement to a “poll tax” and the story is catching fire across social media. Wallace told Fox News, “It is absurd that people should have to write an essay to the town to explain why they should be able to exercise their constitutional rights. We already have a very strict set of gun laws in the state, but this is way over the top.”
In a telephone conversation with Wallace Tuesday, CFL confirmed that Massachusetts gun owners are indeed furious.
“The only conclusion we can arrive at,” he added, “is that the Lowell City Council wants to prevent lawful citizens from exercising their civil rights and has implemented what amounts to a ‘Poll Tax’ for lawful gun owners.”
Making matters worse, one training course available to meet the new requirement runs five days and costs $1,100, according to published reports.
“Massachusetts is among the most restrictive states in the nation when it comes to licensing our civil right to keep and bear arms,” Wallace said in a prepared statement. “There is no documented evidence that licensed gun owners are a threat to public safety. That being the case, there is no problem that exists that would warrant such outrageous measures.”
There is no small amount of irony in all of this, since Massachusetts is the original colony where the first shots of the Revolutionary War were fired at Lexington and Concord, over what amounted to an attempt by the existing government at the time to seize arms and ammunition from the local militia.
- Gun groups go proactive in Washington suicide prevention debate
- Virginia senators nix gun control; Washington gun hearing today
- Judge upholds Seattle ‘gun violence’ tax; SAF vows to appeal
- Chicago ‘safe passage’ not so safe; USAF review confirms the obvious