Talk About This in a Forum

In many states where “shall issue” gun carry “permits” are not the norm, people who carry “large” amounts of cash can sometimes get a “permit” to carry a gun for self-defense.  I recently read a report from a man in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts describing how the officer in charge of issuing “permits” asks if you have to carry money on your person.  If the amount you say you carry is “too low,” you are refused a “permit.”

This issue is so huge, I do not know if I can possibly do it justice in this article.  We’ll see.

Let’s start with Mrs. Rosie O’Donnell.  Let’s say Mrs. O’Donnell gets kidnapped and held for a $1,000,000 ransom.  Before she let them cut off a finger to send as proof they mean business, I assure you, Mrs. O’Donnell would eagerly agree to handing over $1,000,000.  The question blurting out her mouth would be something like, “How would you like your bills!!?”

Her life is more important than money.

Her PINKY FINGER is more important than $1,000,000.

You can bank on that one.

And, I agree.  Rosie O’Donnell’s little pinky finger is more important than any amount of money in any bank in the world—to her.

Now we return to Massachusetts.  The home of the Boston Tea Party some time back, and very possibly where Tea Party II will begin.

In Massachusetts, right now, today, if you carry a measly $500, people with badges and guns on their hips refuse to issue you a “permit” to defend your own life.  Not your pinky.  Your LIFE.

Let’s see if we can put this in a perspective even the most enthusiastic anti-self-defense person can understand.  Let’s talk rape.

There are unresolved rape cases in every state in America.  EVERY state, no exceptions.  This means that there are presumably rapists in every state in America who are still at large.  And rapists who’ve succeeded have a strong, statistical tendency to return to their plundering ways.  Every cop worth his salt will confirm that statement without hesitation, as will statistical data from any major criminal system.  Rapists do it again.

Back to Tea Party II.  Massachusetts has multiple unresolved rape cases, right this minute.  Now.

But the officers in charge, the lads packing heat, refuse to issue “permits” to women--even women who have already been raped.

Now let’s talk murder.

Every state in America, NO EXCEPTIONS, has unresolved MURDER cases on the books--killers at large who’ve succeeded in taking other people’s lives.  Massachusetts has murderers on the streets; that is a FACT.  Boston alone has dozens upon dozens of unresolved murder cases right now, for example.

But a woman with a husband and children cannot carry a self-defense firearm to defend her own person and her own children.

And women in Massachusetts accept this.  No, let’s go further; the misguided ones PROMOTE it.

Facing this bizarre reality is one of the hardest things I’ve ever had to do.  Women amongst rapists and murderers PROMOTE the removal of the only means other women have of defending themselves against larger, stronger men who rape and murder.

The Governor of the state of Massachusetts is a person by the name of Paul Cellucci.  I’ve been thinking a lot about Mr. Cellucci lately.  Mr. Cellucci began his career as a legislator in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts some time ago.  He was the Lt. Governor beginning in 1990, and has been acting Governor or Governor since July of 1997. 

During this time period, Mr. Cellucci has signed or supported quite a few anti-self-defense “laws.”  Among them, Mr. Cellucci signed the "Chapter 180 of the Acts of 1998" known as "Chapter 180."  Larry Savage, a lawful, peaceable gun owner-turned-activist in Massachusetts, has this to say about Chapter 180: "The upshot is that a citizen of MA must go on hands and knees to the Chief of Police and beg for the right to keep and bear arms. The Chief can deny any license at his discretion.  If he doesn't like your politics or the color of your skin, you're out of luck.  There is a court procedure for appealing a denial but few gun owners ever win these appeals.  The court has even denied the appeal of a rape victim the right to carry a firearm for self-defense.  This is the position in which Cellucci has put MA citizens."

I find myself wondering how Mr. Cellucci would feel if his daughter, Kate, his other daughter, Anne (senior at Harvard), or his wife, Jan Garnett were raped or murdered.  Jan, working as a librarian at Boston College, surely must go through parking lots to get to her car.  How would Mr. Cellucci feel if Jan were abducted at knifepoint on the way to her car and later found raped and gutted in a park on the outskirts of Hudson, the town where they reside?  And do they have police protection or a license to carry?

Cellucci was "honorably" discharged with the rank of Captain from the U.S. Army Reserves in 1978.  I wonder if he feels "honorable" for signing a law that makes women easier to rape and all citizens easier to murder?  I wonder, as well, if his honor shines brightly as gun owners who are skilled at shooting get victimized when disarmed--considering they refused to carry a gun to defend their own lives knowing that carrying a gun could mean prison?  Such honor.  Mrs. Cellucci must be proud of Mr. Cellucci's power--who else could force so many people to get raped and murdered by simple use of their pen?

Might as well take a quick look at the Massachusetts Attorney General Reilly, as well.  Larry Savage explains,

"Reilly has enforced the so-called "consumer protection" regulations previously drafted by Scott Harshbarger, the former AG now head of Common Cause. (CC and HCI had the same founder, Pete Shields, I believe.)

"The short version is that no handguns meet the regulations.  New handguns sales have been banned in Massachusetts.  But the AG has allowed the sale of Smith and Wesson handguns.  What a surprise. The AG has waived the requirement of independent lab testing for Smith and Wesson handguns. None of the major manufacturers have performed independent lab testing. There is only one independent lab (H.P.White) with the capability to perform the testing at the cost of 2-3 thousand dollars per handgun model.  Most manufacturers will simply choose not to sell in MA and avoid the expense."

Now, if that doesn't look like corruption to you, perhaps this will.  Larry continues:

"In the mid-1970's MA residents voted down a handgun ban by a wide referendum margin.  A handgun ban bill has been introduced pretty much every year in the legislature and has gone nowhere each time.  The AG has circumvented the legislature and the will of the people all with the stroke of the pen."

There seems to be a pattern here, the essence of which is something like:  "To Hell with the will of the people.  To Hell with the Constitution of the United States of America.  To Hell with the natural, God-given, Constitutionally-recognized right to defend your own life.  Basically, to Hell with Freedom."

Hmmm.  How can I say this and still hold credibility in future articles?  Mr. Reilly, Mr. Cellucci, I fear that someday, and probably not too far off, some lawful, peaceable gun owner who doesn't appreciate your forcing his wife, mother, or daughter to be raped and/or murdered is going to dispense with you.  I don't look forward to reporting that news (not too much anyway), but it is inevitable when you trample on the right of lawful, peaceable citizens that one of them is going to decide that that government has gone too far and take matters into their own hands. 

I just hope they use something besides a gun.

Talk About This in a Forum

You can visit the fine people at Gun Owners Action League for an analysis of Mr. Cellucci's Chapter 180 by visiting: http://www.goal.org/98gunbillanal.html or read the full text of the bill here: http://www.magnet.state.ma.us/legis/laws/seslaw98/sl980180.htm

The "Consumer Protection" regulations enforced by Mr. Reilly are at http://www.goal.org/MGL/harshregs.html