Turbocharged
NES Member
I wrote this to roughly explain the gun laws in MA to less educated people.
It's aimed at people between 16-20, so I limited the details and vocabulary to bare essentials. So most of you will be slightly bored. It's common knowledge in this community, but not to the general public.
Everyone is welcome to post this elsewhere, but please site me (Matt C. aka Turbocharged) as the author.
Go easy on the criticism. It was writen to meet simple needs.![Grin [grin] [grin]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/041.gif)
When you think of gun control, chances are a lot of thoughts run through your mind, probably including thoughts about these recent shootings, and concerns for public and personal safety as well. The most common opinion is that strict gun control laws will prevent violence and gun related crimes. We’ll see what the hard, factual statistics have to say about that. You might be surprised what actually happens when more controlling gun regulations are put in place. My focus for right now will be Massachusetts gun control laws, but a lot of the trends you’ll notice also apply to other states throughout the US.
First, I think an explanation of current Massachusetts and federal gun control regulations is in order. Prior to 1998, all that was require to obtain a rifle was an FID, or Firearms Identification. An FID could be obtained by anyone at least 15 years old, assuming they had their parents consent and had no felonies on their record. At 18 one could apply for an FID on their own, again, assuming they had no felonies on their record. Now, federal law prevented then, and still prevents, anyone under 21 from buying a pistol or revolver. Prior to 1998, all that was needed to buy and carry a pistol or revolver was a valid FID and being at least 21.
That may seem fairly reasonable, and I agree that it was, but that is not the case today. In 1998, Massachusetts passed The Gun Control Act of 1998, which was one of the most restrictive gun control acts in the country. The act went into effect on October 21, 1998. The act is extremely confusing, causing a lot of confusion. Due to the new laws being so difficult to understand, a lot of people were inadvertently turned into criminals simply because they did not understand the new regulations. I’ll try to simplify things so it can actually be considered English. The conditions for applying for an FID remains relatively the same, but there are added restrictions to the FID license. While it is called a “Firearms Identification”, it doesn’t not cover all firearms. An FID only permits the licensed individual to buy or posses a rifle that holds no more than ten rounds, and a shotgun that holds no more than five.
The gun control act of 1998 also created 2 new types of licenses; the LTC (or “License to Carry”) class “A” and LTC class “B”. To apply for either, the applicant must be at least 21 years old, and have no felonies on their record. An LTC class “B” permits the licensed individual to buy or posses rifles or shotguns of any capacity, and pistols that hold less than ten rounds. An LTC class “B” does not, however, permit the licensee to carry a gun on their person. Now, can you honestly say you think that those restrictions are reasonable?
These laws stem from a common belief that all people will follow the laws and go through the correct channels to acquire a firearm. Last time I checked, robbery was a crime no mater what tool is used. What most law makers don’t realize is that if someone is going to commit a crime, they aren’t going to be concerned with following all the laws to get one. Meaning, criminals will get guns whether it’s a crime to have them or not. Criminals, by definition, do not follow the law. Therefore, these laws only apply to law abiding citizens, making it more difficult for law abiding citizens to exercise their rights.
Maybe the moral side of the issue doesn’t mean much to you, so here are some facts. Massachusetts has the toughest gun control laws in New England. Massachusetts also has the least number of gun owners (per 100,000) in New England. Both of those facts may seem to be a good thing, but listen to this: Massachusetts has the highest violent crime rate in New England. Since the Gun Control Act of 1998 was implemented, gun related homicides increased by 68%. Assault Related Gun Injuries increased 72%. Assault Related Hospital Discharges increased 160%. Gun Assault Emergency Room Visits increased 222%. Gun Assault Outpatient Observations increased 538%. Is that really moving is a good direction?! That is the result of the Gun control Act of 1998. When guns are outlawed, only criminals will have guns. If the average citizen has guns, then a criminal is less likely to try to rob that citizen, or any citizen that could potential have a gun. If guns are difficult for a law abiding citizen to get, criminals are much more confident and are more willing to commit crimes without the fear of being stopped.
The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental part of American history, stretching back to the 1770s, and the conflict between America and Great Britain. If it weren’t for firearm owners and riflemen, my speaking out against the laws in place would be considered treason. It’s an important part of our history, and we fought for our right to firearms. In a state with such a history in the Revolutionary war, you would think more importance would be placed on the rights we won. This state also saw a lot of oppression under the crown, oppressing it’s citizens rights seems like the last thing they would do. Our Constitution says “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. That says nothing about restrictions, or that the right only applies to some people to keep some arms. While the point that felons should no t have access to weapons is reasonable, Restrictions in Massachusetts far exceed simply keeping the weapons out of the hands of criminals and dangerous persons, and just restricts law abiding citizens ability to exercise their right as well as protect themselves.
It's aimed at people between 16-20, so I limited the details and vocabulary to bare essentials. So most of you will be slightly bored. It's common knowledge in this community, but not to the general public.
Everyone is welcome to post this elsewhere, but please site me (Matt C. aka Turbocharged) as the author.
Go easy on the criticism. It was writen to meet simple needs.
![Grin [grin] [grin]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/041.gif)
Massachusetts Gun Control
When you think of gun control, chances are a lot of thoughts run through your mind, probably including thoughts about these recent shootings, and concerns for public and personal safety as well. The most common opinion is that strict gun control laws will prevent violence and gun related crimes. We’ll see what the hard, factual statistics have to say about that. You might be surprised what actually happens when more controlling gun regulations are put in place. My focus for right now will be Massachusetts gun control laws, but a lot of the trends you’ll notice also apply to other states throughout the US.
First, I think an explanation of current Massachusetts and federal gun control regulations is in order. Prior to 1998, all that was require to obtain a rifle was an FID, or Firearms Identification. An FID could be obtained by anyone at least 15 years old, assuming they had their parents consent and had no felonies on their record. At 18 one could apply for an FID on their own, again, assuming they had no felonies on their record. Now, federal law prevented then, and still prevents, anyone under 21 from buying a pistol or revolver. Prior to 1998, all that was needed to buy and carry a pistol or revolver was a valid FID and being at least 21.
That may seem fairly reasonable, and I agree that it was, but that is not the case today. In 1998, Massachusetts passed The Gun Control Act of 1998, which was one of the most restrictive gun control acts in the country. The act went into effect on October 21, 1998. The act is extremely confusing, causing a lot of confusion. Due to the new laws being so difficult to understand, a lot of people were inadvertently turned into criminals simply because they did not understand the new regulations. I’ll try to simplify things so it can actually be considered English. The conditions for applying for an FID remains relatively the same, but there are added restrictions to the FID license. While it is called a “Firearms Identification”, it doesn’t not cover all firearms. An FID only permits the licensed individual to buy or posses a rifle that holds no more than ten rounds, and a shotgun that holds no more than five.
The gun control act of 1998 also created 2 new types of licenses; the LTC (or “License to Carry”) class “A” and LTC class “B”. To apply for either, the applicant must be at least 21 years old, and have no felonies on their record. An LTC class “B” permits the licensed individual to buy or posses rifles or shotguns of any capacity, and pistols that hold less than ten rounds. An LTC class “B” does not, however, permit the licensee to carry a gun on their person. Now, can you honestly say you think that those restrictions are reasonable?
These laws stem from a common belief that all people will follow the laws and go through the correct channels to acquire a firearm. Last time I checked, robbery was a crime no mater what tool is used. What most law makers don’t realize is that if someone is going to commit a crime, they aren’t going to be concerned with following all the laws to get one. Meaning, criminals will get guns whether it’s a crime to have them or not. Criminals, by definition, do not follow the law. Therefore, these laws only apply to law abiding citizens, making it more difficult for law abiding citizens to exercise their rights.
Maybe the moral side of the issue doesn’t mean much to you, so here are some facts. Massachusetts has the toughest gun control laws in New England. Massachusetts also has the least number of gun owners (per 100,000) in New England. Both of those facts may seem to be a good thing, but listen to this: Massachusetts has the highest violent crime rate in New England. Since the Gun Control Act of 1998 was implemented, gun related homicides increased by 68%. Assault Related Gun Injuries increased 72%. Assault Related Hospital Discharges increased 160%. Gun Assault Emergency Room Visits increased 222%. Gun Assault Outpatient Observations increased 538%. Is that really moving is a good direction?! That is the result of the Gun control Act of 1998. When guns are outlawed, only criminals will have guns. If the average citizen has guns, then a criminal is less likely to try to rob that citizen, or any citizen that could potential have a gun. If guns are difficult for a law abiding citizen to get, criminals are much more confident and are more willing to commit crimes without the fear of being stopped.
The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental part of American history, stretching back to the 1770s, and the conflict between America and Great Britain. If it weren’t for firearm owners and riflemen, my speaking out against the laws in place would be considered treason. It’s an important part of our history, and we fought for our right to firearms. In a state with such a history in the Revolutionary war, you would think more importance would be placed on the rights we won. This state also saw a lot of oppression under the crown, oppressing it’s citizens rights seems like the last thing they would do. Our Constitution says “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. That says nothing about restrictions, or that the right only applies to some people to keep some arms. While the point that felons should no t have access to weapons is reasonable, Restrictions in Massachusetts far exceed simply keeping the weapons out of the hands of criminals and dangerous persons, and just restricts law abiding citizens ability to exercise their right as well as protect themselves.