Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.6.2
Site Design by Sekimori

« I so love irony | Main | We're in the best of hands, pt. 1021 »

1998 Massachusetts law doesn't seem to have worked...

Posted by David Hardy · 19 February 2013 10:46 AM

So the Boston Globe reports.

· State legislation

5 Comments | Leave a comment

Harry Schell | February 19, 2013 4:50 PM | Reply

I guess the English experience has repeated itself.

What a surprise.

Nice to be part of "the clutter", though. Love that word.

Critic | February 19, 2013 5:35 PM | Reply

The law worked perfectly. It reduced the number of gun owners by increasing hassles and expenses, and thereby will eventually decrease political support for gun rights.

Oh, you mean it didn't work to decrease crime. Whether a complete national or UN private gun ban would reduce crime is something they will probably have to wait a few decades before they get a chance to try.

Eric | February 20, 2013 10:51 AM | Reply

“There were nearly 1.5 million active gun licenses in Massachusetts in 1998,” the AP reported. “In June [2002], that number was down to just 200,000.”

This should count as evidence that gun control and firearm licensing and fee schemes suppress a constitutionally-protected right. Combined with the failure of any gun control scheme to show it serves any public good, it should provide evidence that gun control is only about suppressing constituationally guaranteed rights.

Critic | February 20, 2013 6:40 PM | Reply

The huge drop seemed telling to me as well, but then digging a little deeper raised some questions. It seems much of the drop was from people who moved out of state, died, or sold all their guns years ago, and just didn't update the license info.

But another surprising explanation might be that apparently the license law gave no authority to ticket or punish those who violated it. An attempt to pass an act to give teeth to the law apparently failed in the legislature. Consequently many people may have simply decided not to bother complying with the law.

Jim | February 21, 2013 12:59 AM | Reply

Originally, those gun licenses were granted and valid forever. At some point, the MA GA decided to give them expiration dates. Many people just don't know this, including a relative of mine who was quite surprised when I told him.

Still, its been established that the more hoops to jump through, the fewer people jump. These same people who demand hoops for gun owners decry them for voters. No ID should be required to exercise the right to vote! You must have an ID to exercise the right to own a gun! No poll taxes to vote! Big fees to own a gun!

Leave a comment