The Mass LTC System is Inherently Racist

  • Thread starter Deleted member 67409
  • Start date
Aside from the geographic variations in licensing policies, one of the biggest disenfranchising issues with the LTC system is its fees. $100 for the class and $100 for the permit, reoccurring every 6 years. A family scrounging for money from couch cushions to buy food isn’t going to be able to afford that. These are no different than the poll taxes that were designed to prevent the poor from voting. Now they’re just trying to prevent the poor from being self reliant with their own security.

I am tempted to start an initiative for the class and licensing fees to be eligible for MA tax credits if the resident is under a certain income level.

There are plenty of low income families in the greater Boston area that rely on public transit. Even if they have a car in the family, they are still heavily dependent on public transit.


 
Racist weapon laws date back to the early and middle 19th century and included edged weapons such as swords and large knives, like the Bowie and the "Arkansas Toothpick" dagger. Alabama imposed a $100.00 "transfer tax" on the sale of all Bowie knives in 1837. This, without doubt, was to ensure that the wealthy white southern gentleman would be able to carry an effective weapon concealed under his suitcoat, while poor blacks would be prohibited from doing so because they couldn't afford the cost. Same in NYC, where application fees, fingerprint fees and attorneys' fees for a handgun license are greater than the cost of most handguns. Again, the laws favor the rich and politically-connected.
 
This strategy of proving "Dems are the real racist" is weak. They don't give a damn if you try to say they're racist against non-whites. I'm white and got restricted. I know Hispanics and blacks who got unrestricted.

This is similar thinking to X law disproportionately affects blacks, therefore X law is racist. Liberals love that.

Boston is pretty clear that only business owners, and rich and influential people get unrestricted. If anything that policy discriminates against class and status. But that's discretionary licensing.
 
I'd put a firearm in the hand of any man or woman who needs it to defend their family from the evils in this world, regardless of Race, gender, religion or sexual orientation.

Self-Defense is a basic Human Right...
 
I was able to meet a very well to do prominent family on Nantucket and the language they used to describe minorities were pretty bad but no worse than my poor irish grandmother used. I think in those cases it was a generational thing.

Yeah, that. My Irish Grandmother was very particular that people not say the "N-Word" around her when speaking of *Darkies* - except when we ate those little licorice candies shaped like people that she called N****r Babies.
 
This strategy of proving "Dems are the real racist" is weak. They don't give a damn if you try to say they're racist against non-whites. I'm white and got restricted. I know Hispanics and blacks who got unrestricted.

This is similar thinking to X law disproportionately affects blacks, therefore X law is racist. Liberals love that.

Boston is pretty clear that only business owners, and rich and influential people get unrestricted. If anything that policy discriminates against class and status. But that's discretionary licensing.

It's not a question of licensing it's crime and punishment. I posit that carrying a weapon without a license is not illegal because it is engaging in a constitutional activity. It is obviously illegal because some very racist laws were passed in the wake of the civil war. Those laws were upheld by the supreme court in the 19th century for often very racist reasons. The very gun grabbers we fight today on a daily basis in fact reference these laws and decisions and state that the cases are settled law all while conveniently leaving off the racist origins of these decisions.

So what we have is certain activities are illegal and that the means to possess and carry such weapons is always left to the wealthy and powerful. If a black man has enough wealth and power he can in effect operate under the same rules as 19th century white landed gentleman. This is however a recent event.
 
The Mass gun laws are written to legally allow discrimination. Any white male with a clean record living in Acton can have a unrestricted LTC upon request. Any black male with a clean record living in Boston cannot. What else do you need to know? Jack.

Most white males with clean records living in Boston also cannot have an unrestricted LTC. The process is certainly arduous and geared to those with means by taking almost 9 full months, costing hundreds of dollars, and requiring missing 3 days of work.

You’re spot on with it being geographic. Still though, it takes a not small amount of time, money, and resources to go through the process in Boston. I don’t think a lot of busses run to Moon Island and Ubering in or taking a cab would prove difficult if not impossible. The parameters, while not outwardly racist, certainly put those without the means and time at a distinct disadvantage.
 
Last edited:
That is just as bs as the line about them not having ids to vote.

This is exactly what we need to use though. If voter ID requirements are racist because they can't afford them, then clearly a gun license is racist because they can't afford to buy them. And don't poor people have the right to defend themselves? Why do you hate poor black people so much that they can't defend themselves or need an ID to vote with? (not you, the left "you")
 
This strategy of proving "Dems are the real racist" is weak. They don't give a damn if you try to say they're racist against non-whites. I'm white and got restricted. I know Hispanics and blacks who got unrestricted.

This is similar thinking to X law disproportionately affects blacks, therefore X law is racist. Liberals love that.

Boston is pretty clear that only business owners, and rich and influential people get unrestricted. If anything that policy discriminates against class and status. But that's discretionary licensing.
f*** it, you should carry 24/7 regardless of permission slip. If you need it, you’re gonna want to have it.
 
f*** it, you should carry 24/7 regardless of permission slip. If you need it, you’re gonna want to have it.
It comes down to each individual weighing the odds of being assaulted vs coming into contact with LE and then acting accordingly.
 
This is exactly what we need to use though. If voter ID requirements are racist because they can't afford them, then clearly a gun license is racist because they can't afford to buy them. And don't poor people have the right to defend themselves? Why do you hate poor black people so much that they can't defend themselves or need an ID to vote with? (not you, the left "you")

Maj Toure has been part of several classes in Boston in partnership with Comm2A because of this.
 
This is exactly what we need to use though. If voter ID requirements are racist because they can't afford them, then clearly a gun license is racist because they can't afford to buy them. And don't poor people have the right to defend themselves? Why do you hate poor black people so much that they can't defend themselves or need an ID to vote with? (not you, the left "you")
I know a highly qualified attorney who litigated this issue (focusing not so much on race, but on the requirement of a substantial fee to exercise a right). The court did all but exalt NYC for its oppressive licensing fees that it found completely legal.
 
I know a highly qualified attorney who litigated this issue (focusing not so much on race, but on the requirement of a substantial fee to exercise a right). The court did all but exalt NYC for its oppressive licensing fees that it found completely legal.

So we need to support a poor person who can't afford to do the fight to take it to SCOTUS and get it stricken down on a "pay for a right"? In
 
This is like prisoners talking about freedom. After some time served, freedom for them may be an extra hamburger added to their chow on Sunday.
We are all screwed in MA!
That's why I'm not there anymore. For example, my 18 y/o daughter is down here for the holiday. Today she got her Tennessee driver's license. Saturday were going to Bud's to buy her a shotgun. LTC? Roflmao, f*** you Maura! MERICA!
 
I'm just gonna toss this into the mix. I see the usual South-bashing in this thread. "Oh, they banned blacks from having guns so whites could maintain their supremacist power structure bla bla bla..."

O.K.

Not 100% accurate.

Now, I was born and raised in MA too, and grew up being indoctrinated with the same winner's propaganda as the rest of you.

But think about it.

Seeing as how the newly freed slaves had just been slaves, does anyone really think that it would have been wise to now arm these recently freed men and women?

Just trying to bring a little perspective and help everyone get past their school programming.

For the record, as I have stated before, slavery was the worst mistake this country has ever made for a host of reasons.
 
Caetano v. Massachusetts showed how far and low the Commonwealth will go to keep the unwashed firmly ground under their heel.
Justico Alito summed it up nicely:

"if the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming people than about keeping them safe"
 
I'm just gonna toss this into the mix. I see the usual South-bashing in this thread. "Oh, they banned blacks from having guns so whites could maintain their supremacist power structure bla bla bla..."

O.K.

Not 100% accurate.

Now, I was born and raised in MA too, and grew up being indoctrinated with the same winner's propaganda as the rest of you.

But think about it.

Seeing as how the newly freed slaves had just been slaves, does anyone really think that it would have been wise to now arm these recently freed men and women?

Just trying to bring a little perspective and help everyone get past their school programming.

For the record, as I have stated before, slavery was the worst mistake this country has ever made for a host of reasons.

If the Union gave every freed black family 40 acres, a mule, and cache of surplus guns from the war, black voting patterns and gun ownership rates would be a lot different.

I would rather have seen armed blacks forcefully expressing themselves against former Confederates with Union support. Vae victis - don't like it, don't secede. Reconstruction was ended only because of corrupt political bargaining.
 
Seeing as how the newly freed slaves had just been slaves, does anyone really think that it would have been wise to now arm these recently freed men and women?
The problem with that logic is that "good idea" and "constitutional" don't match. Once you accept the concept that "good idea" trumps the constitution, your open the door for all sorts of legal chicannery. Plus, the post emancipation violence was directed at rather than came from the recently freed.

For example, a good friend, gun owner for decades values her gun rights, despises democrats .. the whole package told me she disagreed with Comm2a fighting to allow LTCs to be issued to non-citizens because "it's not a good idea to let Abdhul the cab driver get a gun". My response was "Under what constitutional theory can you justify singling him out to deny a right protected by the constitution?". The answer was direct - "I don't care about the constitution, I don't want non-citizens owning guns". And this was someone on our side in all other respects. I did ask "what if someone decides letting ordinary unimportant people like you own guns is a bad idea?".
 
I have a close work friend who is Haitian going for his LTC in Waltham. His cousin already got his from North Attleboro but that’s North Attleboro. Will report back what occurs but I hope the same, as Waltham did have a change from red to green a few years back.
 
Racial discrimination these days is much more subtle than "we don't issue LTCs to blacks". A black applicant with a clean record is likely to be treated the same as a white when applying at a given department.

BUT.... departments in cities with large black populations seem more inclined to have restrictive licensing policies and dole out exceptions sparingly. The relevant question is "How does the percentage of black people who live in a town that makes getting an LTC hard and a restricted one even harder compare to white people who live in towns that do not exhibit such obstructionist tendencies?".

In certain cases of discrimination "disparate impact" is considered prima facie evidence of racial discrimination. For example, if an employer offers jobs to black applicants with the right paper qualifications as whites (or females compared to males; Muslims to Jews; etc.) at a lower percentage by a certain margin (The EEOC uses below 80%) that is considered prima facie evidence of discrimination. Prima facie simply means "assumed to be proof unless the accused can prove otherwise" (in other words, guilty until proven innocent).
 
I'm just gonna toss this into the mix. I see the usual South-bashing in this thread. "Oh, they banned blacks from having guns so whites could maintain their supremacist power structure bla bla bla..."

O.K.

Not 100% accurate.

Now, I was born and raised in MA too, and grew up being indoctrinated with the same winner's propaganda as the rest of you.

But think about it.

Seeing as how the newly freed slaves had just been slaves, does anyone really think that it would have been wise to now arm these recently freed men and women?

Just trying to bring a little perspective and help everyone get past their school programming.

For the record, as I have stated before, slavery was the worst mistake this country has ever made for a host of reasons.
I was born in the South, and grew up in all all-white county. The first time I ever encountered outright racist hatred was in college, where two white guys from Philadelphia didn't hesitate to drop N-bombs, and didn't even try to disguise their hatred of blacks. I was honestly shocked. Especially because they were ROTC classmates, and went on to gain Army commissions.

The NH licensing system was also instituted to allow "suitability", and French and Italian applicants weren't considered suitable. From the legislative history I've read, it seems like they were discriminated against more because they were likely to be union supporters in the mills and factories than because of their ancestry, but the discrimination was very real. (In those days, French and Italians weren't considered truly "white".)

When NH passed constitutional carry, that history of discrimination was pushed hard.
 
If the Union gave every freed black family 40 acres, a mule, and cache of surplus guns from the war, black voting patterns and gun ownership rates would be a lot different.

I would rather have seen armed blacks forcefully expressing themselves against former Confederates with Union support. Vae victis - don't like it, don't secede. Reconstruction was ended only because of corrupt political bargaining.


And the war never had to happen in the first place.
Within a relatively short amount of time, industrialization was going to render slavery obsolete anyway.

Why do people like you feel compelled to keep fighting a war that's over that YOU personally had no part of?
 
And the war never had to happen in the first place.
Within a relatively short amount of time, industrialization was going to render slavery obsolete anyway.

Why do people like you feel compelled to keep fighting a war that's over that YOU personally had no part of?

[rofl][rofl][rofl]

1) Slavery would've been rendered economically obsolete eventually by industrialization, like what happened in the Northeastern and Midwestern states between the 1780s and 1850s, like Roger Sherman predicted. Sure. I'll give you that one. Letting it linger on would've created a litany of other issues though:

*The South in reality experienced its own phase of industrialization between the 1890s and the 1920s as the agricultural market crapped the bed and northern companies wanted cheaper, less unionized labor. What's that timetable look like with slavery still intact? What happens when boll weevils eat the Southern economy into shreds with slavery intact, until, say 1892? How's that cute paternalism between massa and his chattels going to work out? Or are the plantation owners going to starve the slaves or sell them cheap to recoup losses?

*The whole "slavery is morally disgusting" aspect

*The US would've become an international pariah like Rhodesia and pre-1994 South Africa because European empires ended slavery (and serfdom) before the US and colonized Africa "to end the Arabic slave trade" (aka use abolition of slavery to appease liberals into supporting colonialism). This international isolation became apparent during the war itself when basically no one wanted to deal with the South after Antietam in the international realm

2) Even if the South seceded and everything was hunky-dory between the USA and the CSA, with no shots fired, having two independent North American anglophone countries would've seriously complicated and maybe bloodied American history. There's all sorts of alt-history literature out there exploring the different possibilities. Reality was this though: the South's main export market was the UK. The South would've had to explore its own international relations. The South would've had markedly different interests than the North. Different interests lead to disputes and disputes lead to conflicts. There's no imaginable way that the two countries could have peacefully co-existed between 1861 and now as independent states.

3) The South started the Civil War by stealing from Federal arsenals and attacking US troops when each state seceded. I guess you don't believe in self-defense.

4) I'm proud that the Union won the Civil War, just like I'm proud of the US winning against the British in the Revolution, the Germans in WW1 and WW2, etc. It's ok to be proud of having beaten your adversaries. That's called "self-respect." I don't know if this isn't obvious to you, but this isn't the "Lost Cause of the Confederacy" gun forum. If you want to reminisce with a bunch of losers, go join a Southern gun forum. We won, they lost, and that gives me pride.

I'm going to make this crystal God-damned clear for you: if you truly support the Constitution, equality for all, and civil liberties for all, including the RKBA and self-defense, then you're a hypocrite if you also support Jim Crow, the CSA, and not allowing equal access to arms to "the blacks" and others.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top Bottom