Maybe we just can't convert these folks overnight . . . or even the weekend. At least Mr. McFarlane did write an article, as he said he would, regarding responses from the folks here at NEShooters! Thanks for writing and calling him!
Gun collector weighs in
Inconsistent rules have some owners worried
Clive McFarlane
[email protected]
T&G STAFF
I received a call from Michael on Friday. He didn’t want me to use his last name and I was only too happy to comply. He owns some 70 guns.
Mike had a bone to pick with me about a column of mine that was published that day on the strict gun permit policy Worcester Police Chief Gary J. Gemme has in place.
I said that I was relieved that the chief was conscientious in ensuring that legal gun owners are responsible and law-abiding individuals.
A few gun owners felt I was joining the Brady Bunch and trying to deny them their constitutional and, to them, God-given right to own and carry a weapon.
I was not. I just didn’t understand, since we are not living in Iraq, why any civilian would feel the need to stockpile rocket-propelled grenade launchers, one of which was found among a cache of weapons seized from a Dudley man’s home last week.
Mike said he doesn’t know the Dudley man, but wants it understood that there are legitimate gun collectors such as himself in the state.
His fixation with guns began when he joined the Marine Corps during World War II.
“I had never fired a gun in my life,” he said. “I absolutely hated guns.”
Then he fired the M-1, which was the soldier’s weapon of choice back then.
“I was amazed at the sense of accomplishment in successfully shooting targets at 200, 300, and 500 yards,” he said.
Years after getting out of the service, he applied for his first gun permit. He now has a gun room in his home that is about 9-by-6-feet in size. He’s also one of 450 members of a statewide gun club.
He also is a book collector.
“I have a bunch of signed first editions. That is fine,” he told me. “But as soon as I tell people I am a gun collector, they look at me like I am a nut. They treat you like a skunk at a lawn party. No one appreciates what you do.”
I don’t think anyone would want to deny Mike his gun collection, but I did not want to press the point. My reluctance wasn’t because Mike has 70 guns, but because he came across as reasonable as his concerns. He’s worried that in trying to keep the nation’s civilian arsenal of weapons out of unscrupulous hands, local police chiefs rob law-abiding gun owners of their constitutional rights.
Mike is particularly upset with Chief Gemme’s refusal to grant permits, as the city had done previously, for “lawful purposes,” a designation that covers all legal uses of a weapon, including self protection.
Under Chief Gemme’s new policy, if you want a gun for protection, you have to spell out exactly the threats you are facing. If the threats are real, you get your permit. If they are imagined, well, you might not.
He is not the only police chief with that attitude. The Quincy police chief, for example, takes the same stance on issuing gun permits.
Adam, a 24-year-old Quincy resident, says there isn’t a blemish on his record, he works for an architectural firm, and is a former Eagle Scout, but was denied a permit to carry a gun for personal protection.
“I couldn’t show I was in imminent danger,” he said. “But there shouldn’t have to be an imminent threat for you to have the ability to protect yourself. Right now you have a lot people coming back to renew their permits and those permits are being downgraded. That is a violation of our rights.”
Mike, our local gun collector, believes the policies of the Quincy and Worcester police chiefs are a throwback to the 1960s and ’70s. That was when it was nearly impossible to obtain a gun permit for personal protection.
“It was either sporting or target, nobody wanted to issue a permit for self-defense,” he said.
“They didn’t want a bunch of cowboys running around. If you own a jewelry store and are afraid of being robbed, they would tell you no one’s life is worth the money. If someone tries to rob you, give them the money. You would have your life and they would have theirs.”
Of course, having a permit covering only hunting and target shooting results in problems with the police, Mike noted.
“If you are driving down the street with a gun on the seat beside you, and you were not going hunting or target shooting, they would arrest you for being in violation of your permit,” he said.
“Eventually, people began realizing that not all gun owners were crazy people. … They started issuing permits for all lawful purposes.
“Now it appears that we’re changing direction again.
“What it really comes down to is uniformity as to what goes on. Show us what the rules are and we will follow them. Don’t change the rules on the fly.”
Again, I don’t have a problem with Mike on this. But I still maintain that a local police chief is in the best position to determine who does and doesn’t get a gun permit. Prove that the chief is being arbitrary in his decisions and there is a problem, one that belongs in court.
Contact Clive McFarlane by e-mail at [email protected].
Gun collector weighs in
Inconsistent rules have some owners worried
Clive McFarlane
[email protected]
T&G STAFF
I received a call from Michael on Friday. He didn’t want me to use his last name and I was only too happy to comply. He owns some 70 guns.
Mike had a bone to pick with me about a column of mine that was published that day on the strict gun permit policy Worcester Police Chief Gary J. Gemme has in place.
I said that I was relieved that the chief was conscientious in ensuring that legal gun owners are responsible and law-abiding individuals.
A few gun owners felt I was joining the Brady Bunch and trying to deny them their constitutional and, to them, God-given right to own and carry a weapon.
I was not. I just didn’t understand, since we are not living in Iraq, why any civilian would feel the need to stockpile rocket-propelled grenade launchers, one of which was found among a cache of weapons seized from a Dudley man’s home last week.
Mike said he doesn’t know the Dudley man, but wants it understood that there are legitimate gun collectors such as himself in the state.
His fixation with guns began when he joined the Marine Corps during World War II.
“I had never fired a gun in my life,” he said. “I absolutely hated guns.”
Then he fired the M-1, which was the soldier’s weapon of choice back then.
“I was amazed at the sense of accomplishment in successfully shooting targets at 200, 300, and 500 yards,” he said.
Years after getting out of the service, he applied for his first gun permit. He now has a gun room in his home that is about 9-by-6-feet in size. He’s also one of 450 members of a statewide gun club.
He also is a book collector.
“I have a bunch of signed first editions. That is fine,” he told me. “But as soon as I tell people I am a gun collector, they look at me like I am a nut. They treat you like a skunk at a lawn party. No one appreciates what you do.”
I don’t think anyone would want to deny Mike his gun collection, but I did not want to press the point. My reluctance wasn’t because Mike has 70 guns, but because he came across as reasonable as his concerns. He’s worried that in trying to keep the nation’s civilian arsenal of weapons out of unscrupulous hands, local police chiefs rob law-abiding gun owners of their constitutional rights.
Mike is particularly upset with Chief Gemme’s refusal to grant permits, as the city had done previously, for “lawful purposes,” a designation that covers all legal uses of a weapon, including self protection.
Under Chief Gemme’s new policy, if you want a gun for protection, you have to spell out exactly the threats you are facing. If the threats are real, you get your permit. If they are imagined, well, you might not.
He is not the only police chief with that attitude. The Quincy police chief, for example, takes the same stance on issuing gun permits.
Adam, a 24-year-old Quincy resident, says there isn’t a blemish on his record, he works for an architectural firm, and is a former Eagle Scout, but was denied a permit to carry a gun for personal protection.
“I couldn’t show I was in imminent danger,” he said. “But there shouldn’t have to be an imminent threat for you to have the ability to protect yourself. Right now you have a lot people coming back to renew their permits and those permits are being downgraded. That is a violation of our rights.”
Mike, our local gun collector, believes the policies of the Quincy and Worcester police chiefs are a throwback to the 1960s and ’70s. That was when it was nearly impossible to obtain a gun permit for personal protection.
“It was either sporting or target, nobody wanted to issue a permit for self-defense,” he said.
“They didn’t want a bunch of cowboys running around. If you own a jewelry store and are afraid of being robbed, they would tell you no one’s life is worth the money. If someone tries to rob you, give them the money. You would have your life and they would have theirs.”
Of course, having a permit covering only hunting and target shooting results in problems with the police, Mike noted.
“If you are driving down the street with a gun on the seat beside you, and you were not going hunting or target shooting, they would arrest you for being in violation of your permit,” he said.
“Eventually, people began realizing that not all gun owners were crazy people. … They started issuing permits for all lawful purposes.
“Now it appears that we’re changing direction again.
“What it really comes down to is uniformity as to what goes on. Show us what the rules are and we will follow them. Don’t change the rules on the fly.”
Again, I don’t have a problem with Mike on this. But I still maintain that a local police chief is in the best position to determine who does and doesn’t get a gun permit. Prove that the chief is being arbitrary in his decisions and there is a problem, one that belongs in court.
Contact Clive McFarlane by e-mail at [email protected].
![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
![[angry]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/008.gif "Angry [angry]")
