Seamless Statism

by Rick Olson

   ”Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.”    —Frederic Bastiat

Worcester Massachuetts Police Chief Gary Gemme

Worcester Massachusetts Police Chief Gary Gemme

One of the most nifty aspects of being a statist in places like the People’s Republik of Taxachusetts is the flexibility afforded to statists by laws and policies. In the present cultural environment where our lame stream media is awash with anti-gun, pro-gun control advocacy, tin horn police chiefs can rule their fiefdoms as arbitrarily as they see fit, sans any commitment to the laws or the people they serve. And besides, where Mass Gun laws are concerned Chiefs can play as fast and loose as they choose.

Such is the case with Worcester Police Chief Gary Gemme. The Worcester Police Department issued a “restricted” license to resident Ryan Shaugnessy. Now, the city of Worcester is being sued.

As reported in the Worcester Telegram, A lawsuit has been filed by six commonwealth residents, with the help of the National Rifle Association-supported gun rights group Comm2A.

They’re asking the court to declare unconstitutional the law that allows police chiefs in cities and towns to attach sporting, hunting or target restrictions on licenses to carry firearms for otherwise qualified individuals.

The suit, filed last week in Boston, also asks the court to direct the defendants to issue unrestricted gun licenses to carry to the plaintiffs.

According to the lawsuit, the way the defendants issue licenses to carry violates the 2nd Amendment by prohibiting them from keeping and bearing arms. The lawsuit alleges that issuing restricted licenses also violates the 14th Amendment, since an individual might be able to qualify for an unrestricted license in a neighboring town.

The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment provides that a state shall not “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

In 2009, Mr. Shaughnessy applied for an unrestricted license to carry from Chief Gemme, and was issued a license to carry with the “sporting & target” restriction, according to the lawsuit.

Chief Gemme tells the Worcester Telegram:

“The plaintiff’s civil action recognizes the well-established rule that, ‘a local official’s decision to impose restrictions on an individual’s (license to carry) will be upheld so long as it is not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.’ I am confident that the facts related to this case will affirm that my decision to place a reasonable restriction on the plaintiff’s (license to carry) was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of power.”

A, “well-established rule”  and a, “Local official’s decision.”  Spoken like a true statist, indeed.

We need only look to our neighbors to the south and lament for them the woes endured by the law-abiding citizens for an arbitrary state that keeps them disarmed, neck deep in crime and flush with corrupt politicians. Local governmental hacks are only too happy to fall in lock step.

Juxtapose that with our own Granite State Pistol Revolver License Law and you now fully understand why the law contains what it does. Let this story serve as a reminder to why we Granite States have some modest fortune in our gun laws. Stories like this remind us to be ever vigilant, watchful and ready to defend what we have.

Like it? Share it!

Leave a Comment

  • Chris P. Bacon

    Funny isn’t it Rick (are you married to Susan, just trying to figuere out her scowell)? In this case we would want the Fed’s in the form of the Supremee’s to step in and set things right. In other cases involving guns, we want the Feds out of our lives and rejoice when our local officials (shewwiffs) step in and do the “right” thing. When it comes to Mary Jane, well we want the feds to enforce the law, but when it comes to another supreme court decision that we do not like (R V W) we not only harrass people who are acting within the bounds of the law, but we demonize them. I tellz yah, i am so confused. Do we want Uncle Scam running our lives or not? Or is what we really want is for him to run other peoples lives, but not ours.

    cpb-Keeps coming back to GG for clarity.

  • Patrick Henry

    I don,t trust nra with any suits, they think all citizens should have govt permission for 2nd . These public servants should be on auto unpaid leave of absence for causing a civil violation suit, until settled. Why do citizens think they need a license for a GOD given right? The suit should be directed towards elimination of licenses permission to exercise inalienable rights. period..

Previous post:

Next post: