Chief of Police Requires “Essay” to Obtain CCW

As gun owners and supporters of the Second Amendment we are used to lawmakers and public officials coming up with new ways to subvert the law and enact defacto gun control. That being said, the Chief of Police of Lowell, Massachusetts, has set the bar to a new low. Massachusetts’ law mandates that it is an, “unrestricted right-to-carry” gun permit state. However, the police chief still has to issue the permit. In this case, the chief of the Lowell, Massachusetts Police Department has mandated that the residents of Lowell submit a written essay to the chief of police that explains just why they want that particular right. To actually receive the permit, the applicant must receive a passing grade.

Man in light blue shirt and white ball cap teaches two young ladies how to handle a gun, with a wooded area in the background The whole “shall not be infringed argument” is self-explanatory and needs no further explanation here, but how can anyone even conceive an essay requirement as a fair judge of whether to issue an “unrestricted right-to-carry” gun permit? I have read more than one report from police officers… based on their writing skills, more than a few would not have qualified to carry a firearm. However, that is not to say they were not good coppers. There is a lot that goes in to writing a report or an essay, including time, sleep, stressors, and education to name a few, but none of those have anything to do with the restriction of a Constitutional right.

English, writing skills, grammar, they are all subjective to the interpretation of the reader. Even the SAT, the standard requirement to enter most four-year universities, requires multiple readers to grade an essay, but not in Lowell. In Lowell, the Chief merely makes up a rule and assigns a reader. In fairness, the Chief did not make the rule, he merely brought it up to the city council who approved it, but you get the idea.

Adding insult to injury, in addition to the essay requirement, the residents of Lowell are also required to pay up to $1,100 for firearms training in order to obtain their permit.

The Local Perspective

Once the story broke, The Shooter’s Log immediately went to Mike Pelonzi, President of Magnum Anti Ballistic Systems Corporation. Beyond making some of the most innovative ballistic panels (Check back in the next couple of weeks for a story on Pelonzi’s ballistic solutions), Pelonzi is also a certified firearms training instructor in Massachusetts, which him an ideal candidate for a local perspective.

Pelonzi said, to be certified as a firearms instructor, you have to submit all of your training certificates and a written lesson plan to the Colonel of the MA State Police. Once approved, you are certified to teach the course. Students seeking a CCW who successfully pass that course are and issued a MA certificate, which is supposed to be—and was until now—accepted through all police departments in the state.

Magnum Anti Ballistic Systems Corporation Danvers MA 01923 Mike Pelonzi, President 978.815.6989 

However, Lowell, MA, Police Chief William Taylor’s new plan calls for additional requirements such as the essay and fees up to $1,100. Although the details are a bit vague as the department’s website has not yet been updated, it is rumored that the increase in fees is due to the Chief’s requirement that citizens be required to take a class taught by the police department instead of private instructors. Pelonzi noted that the average firearms safety class costs between $75 and $125, plus $100 for the license application fee.

Pelonzi concluded the interview by noting, criminals do not take firearm safety classes. We already have a system that requires training and an application that goes through a full NICS background check. Lowell’s new requirements add a burden to the law-abiding citizens and potentially denies them of their Constitutional rights, but does nothing to deter crime.

Jim Wallace with the Gun Owners Action League of Massachusetts released this statement: “It is absurd that people should have to write an essay to the town to explain why they should be able to exercise their constitutional rights. We already have a very strict set of gun laws in the state, but this is way over the top. It’s like having a college professor say, ‘I’m going to read your essay and if I don’t like it, I’m going to give it back to you.’” ATF Form 4473 “We’re no longer taking a cookie-cutter approach to issuing firearms licenses,” he said, in the Lowell Sun.

More time? More time for what? How is more time than the law dictates and burdensome, unnecessary requirements anything more than discrimination and an unlawful requirement to enact backdoor gun control by either denying citizens of their Constitutional rights or at a minimum delaying those rights?

How do you feel about Lowell, Massachusetts, new requirement to obtain an “unrestricted right-to-carry” gun permit by writing an essay and increasing the fees? Share you opinions in the comment section.


The Mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, The Shooter's Log, is to provide information—not opinions—to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (225)

  1. I agrre 100% with you with one exception. All Plea-bargaining should be outlawed. Either you are guility of the crime or not. Plea-Bargaining only lets the criminal out on the street sooner and creates the criminal revolving door on crime. Criminal justice is supposed to be equal not expiedant for the sake of the prosicuting attornies.Our judical system is totally screded up!

  2. NRA/ILA does support suits by both individuals and groups. Here in California, they are backing one or two suits involving business owners v Camala Harris, CA Atty Gen, as well as supporting suits brought by Cal Gun Owners Assoc.

    The NRA is a 501c organization, while the NRA/ILA is a legislative action organization. While the two are often used interchangeably, they are separate entities.

  3. To DaveW…good commentary. You have touched on the prime reason we find people believing that the present laws are not enough to curb the violence. In fact, allowing perps to plea to lesser charges and throwing out the gun charge, allows those perps to avoid the mandatory sentences that are supposed to be automatic.
    If a group of legislators on any govt. level enacted a law that forbade a lawyer the right to plea down from a gun charge….and federal sentencing was allowed to be enforced, THAT would take a violent criminal off the street. THAT would show all that the present gun laws are enough.

  4. Being a California resident and pro 2nd Amendment, I keep tabs on legislation proposed by state legislators and what impact it will have on me. The same is true of the NRA/ILA.

    As for Ye, along with de Leon, and some others, we have watched their prolific writing of anti-gun legislation for a number of years.

    When the FBI busted Ye, it was published and broadcast in the media. When he was allowed to plead guilty to a lesser charge, it was aired.

    I do not care what happens to people like Ye, except that he was allowed to plead to a lesser charge and avoid the punishment you or I might expect to face. I do care that he continues to be paid for representing the people. I do care about the hypocrisy of the anti-gun movement which falsifies the data they quote, and when they seek to restrict lawful gun owners while they themselves might deal in illegal gun sales, or have personal investments in the firearms industry.

  5. In regards to Nick Liberto comment.
    Thank you. I hope there are a enough people who realize that no common sense person who reads that kind of rhetoric would believe a word of it. And as for the anti Second Amendment gun grabbers out there. I also wonder if any of them have even given a thought to how the tax dollars could be replaced or where the jobs will come from to replace those jobs lost because of their “the gun grabbers” anti gun, anti Second Amendment positions. As for those fine people who would lose those jobs; beginning with the line workers and all the way to the top engineers and designers, they should be inferriorated that anyone and I do mean anyone would make an attempt to destroy a persons livelihood. Doing so or even being a part of such a scheme should be abhorrent to every and anyone. Having had even a small role in the demise of those careers and family incomes, not to mention the effects caused by the loss of income will have on each and every person is a cross that only selfish, uninformed, ignorant and irrational people would carry without having any remorse. I doubt though that any of these anti gun, anti Second Amendment and dare I say anti American people would give a thought too any of what I have written here today.

  6. Now there’s a plan. And while on the subject. Has the NRA filed a law suit on behalf of its members or does the NRA plan on doing so. With over a million members and myself being one of them. I would gladly offer up an extra five $$$$$$$ dollars to help support law suits of this type.

  7. Well, I’m not sure what Dave is saying has anything to do with THIS article, but I am wondering why the writer didn’t ask whether anyone is yet suing the city council (ya’ know you can get rid of these idiots by voting against them) and specifically suing the police chief, not in his capacity as the chief of police, but as John Doe, which would require the chief to fork out HIS OWN MONEY to defend himself. That being said, if anyone in this little podunk town is reading this, join the NRA and then demand that they sue these jerks!!!! Let’s see how long a small town’s bank roll will last when they have spend their budget money for a high level lawyer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Because it is obvious that no one at the state level would help defend them since they have taken it upon themselves [THIS IS THE KEY WORD, “themselves”] to ADD requirements that the state of Mass does not require nor mandate!!!

  8. I agree that legitimate gun suppliers don’t do what the government does, but I do know that state legislator Ye (D-CA) was very prolific at producing gun control bills while running guns behind the scenes.

    1. I am not familiar with legislator Ye (D-CA) and if he/she is anti-second amendment I couldn’t care less about what happens to him/her. I am interested in learning how you know whether or not the said person has been guns and what scenes you are referring to.

  9. Any suggestion that manufacturers are shipping thousands of guns to border towns to be sold to alleged gangs and then redistributed to members that ultimately bring them back into the U.S. illegally….is a pretty dumb idea.
    A gun manufacturer employs hundreds of people, has a stable business that reaps millions of dollars annually and contributes greatly to the city in which they operate via a large, tax base. I do not think they would risk being shut down to sell a few thousand guns to Texas border towns.

  10. If that is the case then they are breaking the law. If you know of such activities and you can proove it than by all means contact your local and the FBI law inforcement. It all comes down to inforceing the laws on the books.I am sure the gun manufactures are shipping the guns to lisenced FFL holders. If not than they should be shut down. Again if you know this is taking place and you do nothing to stop it you are as guility as they are for doing so.

  11. Well just another Oath Breaking official. He swore an oath to protect and defend the constitution and dose just the opposite. When are the people going to wake the hell up? This ass wipe of a Sherriff should be removed from office for violating his oath of office as should all elected officials that do so. I personally have had enough of the Bull Crap coming out of the mouths of elected officials. It’s time to amend the state and federal constitutions and add a line stating , any and all elected officials putting forth any form of legislature to circumvent the meaning of the constitution as written and interpreted at the time of its inception are violating their oath of office. By doing so it is considered you resignation.
    We can all read and determine the true meaning of the constitution and the arguments presented in the federalist righting. It is time for the American People to put a stop to elected officials violating their oath once and for all. The Constitution does no have any ambiguity. It means what it says and that is the law of the land. Non compliance is the answer and nullification by each and every citizen is the answer to a government that is out of control. Stand your ground as the forefathers intended. You elected him and you can have him removed.

  12. What a joke I walked into sheriffs office paid 50$ for background check, got my finger prints taken on both hands walked out it was at my door in the mail 30 days later. Not that I feel it should be that easy I’m glad I don’t have those unnecessary BS laws youball have.

  13. In Pa. there is a small space asking the applicant to show a reason for wanting a carry permit. In most instances, entering the phrase….”for personal protection” is sufficient. Because someone may not be articulate enough to write a satisfactory essay on ANY subject, should not deem that person unworthy. I am not a cook, and I could not explain how food is made to taste good….but I can enjoy eating same.
    There should be pertinent questions asked regarding criminal records; alcohol or drug dependencies; and protection from abuse records. Otherwise, simply wanting to have self protection should not be infringed upon. That is not a constitutional law….but it is certainly a natural law.

  14. The gun manufacturers are not controlling any laws. Several gun makers have moved their businesses from ultra-liberal states that impose too much in the way of restrictions and sur taxes.
    As for making too much money…how much is too much? In a country that was built and became great because of free enterprise, I applaud those gun makers that produce an excellent product. None of those companies has ever come to my home and demanded that I support them.

    1. Does your approval include gun manufacturers who ship 10,000’s guns to Texan Border Town Gun Shops, who sell these guns to anyone who walks thru their doors. Their best customers are known Mexican Drug Cartel Members; who buy pickup truck loads of guns for cash and legally drive them over the Mexican Border, with no inspection by the US Border Agency. Some of these guns are back in the USA in less than a WEEK! Check UTUBE.

    2. With the U.S. Government giving Mexican Cartels all the weapons they need or want, why should the purchase them? I have to wonder about those that get their ‘factual’ news & information from Youtube. Anyone can post anything at anytime, fact or fiction. But, then, I’ve heard people comment and in all seriousness, “If it is on the Internet, it has to be true, because it is illegal to tell lies on it.” Having lived in A Texas border town, Brownsville, I assure that Texas gun dealers adhere to Federal gun sales law much more strictly than does the Federal Government. ‘Fast & Furious’ may be a thing of the past (or is it?), but guns provided by the U.S. Government continue to be sent to cartels in Mexico. Without the cartels shipping tons of drugs into the U.S., DEA becomes unnecessary. Without the ‘gun’ violence of cartels along the Mexican-U.S. Border, the liberals would have no cause for their anti-gun lies.

  15. BRUCE….all of your imagined problems that might occur if everyone is packing a weapon….are no more than imaginary. Certainly, there are many people that should never have a deadly weapon and most cities, and townships have reasonable pre qualifications to determine those that are unworthy to be so trusted. But you cannot base the enactment of a law based upon hypothetical possibilities.

  16. Whomever wrote the law, whether a single person, or a group of people, the person charged with enforcing the law, should know enough about such a law, to point that out to the council.
    The city council in this case, is desperate to act as though it is doing something to protect it’s city. I would suggest they impose a law on the city’s prosecuting attorneys to stop accepting plea bargaining in a gun related crime and putting perps away for a long time. This is a sure way to help stop crime.

  17. ES…I would offer that we do not live in a democracy but rather, in a representative republic. Many of our citizens confuse that fact since we use a democratic process by which to choose our elected reps.
    By allowing a simple vote by all people, we are in fact, violating the rights bestowed upon us via the constitution. The second amendment is pretty clear. It does not mitigate that birth right by adding to the words…such a right will be determined by certain cities or townships. So, it the concept that our federal rights outweigh any such law as a city, state or county council might, it should be offered that any city, state or county laws pertaining to gun rights, must comply with the original intent, or be considered unconstitutional.

  18. So……do you have to write an essay to be allowed to vote in Lowell ? Have they brought the poll tax back ?

  19. Bruce Almighty – You mention “Uncertified” people coming into your ER… Did you mean gunshot victims without a permit? Or ‘certifiable nut cases’ that were not so ‘certified’? Sounds like a judgment call on your part. But yes, back in the ’70s MA made it very difficult for a mentally ill person to become ‘certified’, and in fact released most of them at the same time.

    I had a Pistol Permit in MA for many years (back in the ’70s. The Chief of police would not issue it for ‘Protection’, only ‘Hunting and Target’. But the reality of the law was, it did not matter. I had a permit to possess a firearm, and “open carry” was illegal. Hmmmm… Even in Springfield, where I was once questioned about it (and who’s Chief had refused to issue a permit to me) my pistol and permit were courteously returned to me after the officer called in to his Desk Sargent.

    Now, a town or city police chief is an unelected official. The County Sheriff is the ultimate law enforcement authority in any state. In addition, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled, in both the Heller and MacDonald cases that cities and towns cannot unduly or arbitrarily restrict your second amendment right to keep and bear arms. They even went so far as to incorporate the second amendment into the fourteenth.

    So to the people of Lowell I say your rights are being infringed by an unelected official in violation of the Constitution of the United States, as supported by recent Supreme Court rulings. What are you prepared to do about it? Class action suit against the town sounds appropriate. Certainly you have the ability to replace the Town Council that (from what I read) not only allowed this, but promoted it. STOP BEING VICTIMS!! Stop with the “Well that’s what the Government says he can do, so there’s nothing I can do about it”. Imagine if James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock etc. had all just said “Oh well – it is what it is”…

    Wake up, America. It is time to restore the rule of law and take our country back.

    Read the Tenth Amendment. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People”. The Second Amendment specifically revokes such power from the United States, and the States respectively.

    1. @ Pragmatic.

      NOT QUITE, The ROLE of the “Sheriff” is limited to City, Town and/or County. NOT the STATE. The State Marshall service has State Wide Jurisdiction.

  20. Heck, let’s just bump it up to a Masters Degree or Doctorate with at least 20 years of honorable Federal service while we’re at it. That should eliminate 99% of the populations right to bear arms.
    Being stupid didn’t stop the Police Chief from getting his job. In fact, it was probably a requirement. Ha!

  21. Yep. In Napa, self defense is an automatic disqualification even if you can show cause… like a woman being stalked by a convicted sexual predator.

    That’s why the present suits against AG Harris are so important.

  22. Go ahead and apply for a Utah CCW permit. Utah has reciprocity with 37+ states. Most of us in Oregon have done so.


  23. At first I was outraged but I thought…what if that psycho neighbor who hates me could easily obtain one? I thought about the number of “uncertified” nut cases that come into my ER. If the officials don’t abuse this essay to try to keep everyone disarmed there are people out there who would surely cause problems if emboldened by carrying a piece. A shooting over a parking space. A gun in your face because you were distracted and failed to hold the door for them. Produces a pistol because the pharmacist can’t fill his prescription until his Dr authorizes it. Perhaps an essay to get you a face to face interview where they are genuinely interested in have a more well-armed public for the safety of all and to keep the mentally dangerous ones disarmed. Think about it. Think of the latest whacko you encountered. A road rage nut giving you the finger (or pointing a gun – you choose) because of something vey very minor but you were in the right (yielding, everyone letting one car in but he tries to squeeze in ahead of his turn but you try to allow only the one car that should). So long as the officials are on your side, it’s not a bad thing. When they want to disarm all…they are not fit for their position and should be fined and punished. My opinion, of course.

    1. Crime is not punishable until one is committed. If the citizens agree with Sheriff and city council., then it’s a done deal. In all, we all are trying to make it safe for everyone. Thats with a firearm or without one. There is many ways harm can come to anyone, it should be up to each citizen in what tool they would like to have for protection.that is permitted by law. Most states have pretty good requirements in place in order to get a permit for ccw. Thank God we do have a process in place to help stop certain individuals from getting a permit. Keep in mind our civil servants are people too, who is going to protect us if one these idividuals should theyhave a crisis in their life and decide to do something stupid. Society puts a lot stress on us all, some more than others, it’s challenge for us all. Hopefully a good. sound solution will come in the future. We are a great nation with great people, I hope that our Constitutional rigths are not taken away by a few individuals, and may we all remeber one thing, let the people decide. It’s call voting, yea/nay,who’s in/who out, it’s a

    2. Doc…. those possibilities are happening anyway.

      Reminds me of college and a police course for weapons certification. The instructor, on the first day, ask each student why they were taking the class. The majority of us were there for law enforcement training. All was going well until one student said, “I’m here to learn how I can legally shoot people.” He was promptly expelled from the course, and, although he tried to explain it was intended as humor, he was not allowed back.

  24. at the very least the sheriff should be tested weekly for drugs, also be tested academically to see how he figures he’s qualified to pronounce judgement. Having 2nd amend rights doesn’t pivot on an essay. “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” evidently he can’t even understand that SIMPLE phrase..

  25. Prisonguard1….your comment in reference to being able to aim and pull the trigger when the time comes is very, very important. People that may be under the impression that simply showing a gun and perhaps not even loading it….is certainly an invitation to be shot and killed. IF….you are going to obtain a gun and carry it….your mindset had better be proper.

  26. Chief Taylor, his regime, and the Massachusetts government are the perfect examples of why the right to keep and bear arms is so important. Not so much for a militia to defend the country’s freedom against external threats, but to defend ourselves against a government of our own that would disarm us all. Especially in corrupt, crime ridden states where violent threats are highest. And when that government is successful, history has always shown what happens next. Nazis, Dictatorship, extermination. Always look for the contradictions with these people, then their true goal is more obvious. I’m thankful to live next door in Maine where the Second Amendment is my concealed carry permit.

  27. Judging from the history of their deceased patron saint, Teddy Kennedy, their efforts would be better spent making the requirements for getting a driver’s license tougher! Ask the Kopechne family.

  28. This is just another “Little Man”, big ego type. He likes the power and fear that he injects to the process of gun ownership. When he can have a deputy walking along with every citizen to protect them 24/7/365 then and only then would it be a “maybe” ! But we know that’s a big a joke as that “Chief of Police” & his Hitler type rule!!!

  29. This is an old practice, in 1993 when I got my CCW for the first time. I lived in Columbus Indiana, a letter had to be submitted to the chief of police. It had to include why you wanted a CCW and reasons that would allow the use of deadly force. All this had to pass thru his office to be able to obtain a CCW. Back then no training was required to obtain it.

    1. Troy, I had to do the same in Ft. Wayne in the early 70…took a long time for approval but I finally got it.

  30. mass as always been a police state it is ironic the birth state of the revolution against the British an 235 yrs after the fact have become a communist state an the dumb people of mass let it happen glad i don’t live in a communist state i live in a republic state witch is free of this you can thank the Kennedy’s on up the people of mass better wake up

  31. We, in the Bay Area of California, have the same issue. We must submit a written argument why we should be allowed to have a concealed carry permit. Wanting to have one is not enough. in fact, most reasons will not pass the sheriff. So few permits are issued that the prevailing attitude, even at the local NRA courses on defense outside the home, is that it is not even worth applying because the application will be rejected. MA is not the only place that has lost the constitutional right to bear arms.

  32. Living in the ‘PEOPLES REPUBLIK of KALIFORNISTAN’ I can sympathize with the imprisoned citizens of the once great state of Massachusetts. If I weren’t a retired peace officer I doubt that I would be able to get a CCW , but since it is actually my right and I feel ‘DUTY’ to carry, I will do so. Unless you know can can aim and shoot when and if the time arises then maybe a CCW is not for you. No one knows for sure until tested, once it leaves the barrel there is no ‘do overs’.

  33. The U.S. Marshall’s office should arrest Chief William Taylor for subversion, sedition, and and becoming an Hitler’s police state. But then they don’t have the guts to do it either, so — The U.S. government previously passed a bill that “no Chief of police official may turn down CWP applicants and that they can not become Capone insurance hoods collecting outlandish fees for this or that. WHAT ABOUT THIS FBI, hahahaha No comment either. If those citizens allow this to happen to themselves — then when the war starts for sure your on your own,m expect no help from the Constitutional Patriots..

    1. @ pAUL.

      The problem is, that the Chief of Police for Lowell, Massachusetts is THE MESSAGE, NOT the MESSENGER. The Messengers, in this Case are the Town Council of Lowell, Massachusetts. THEY “WROTE” The Law. The Chief of Police, DIDN’T!

  34. If there is ever a firearms death by some maniac where a good guy with a gun could have stopped it by the lawful possession of a firearm if it were not for these draconian rules by the police chief I trust he, his department and the city get the pants sued off of them. An essay? The police chief needs to complete an essay on the United States Constitution and each amendment. Remember the Constitution? The same Oath he took when becoming a police officer. Give this police chief a badge and a gun and he thinks he is God. What a tool!

  35. This is yet another clear effort to place burden upon all law abiding citizens. Those that chose to follow the law and obtain both a CCW and firearms are subjected to unbelievable restrictions for the feel good optics of those that do not want to accept reality. As far as the police officials in this area all I can say is that there will come a day to which you will need the support of those that you currently impose unnecessary restrictions, how do you think that we will support you????????????

  36. I think the police chief and city council of Lowell are worried that one of those nasty old CCW people will come along and shoot their unicorns…just sayin’!

  37. So… you think this is a conspiracy by the NRA and the firearms companies?

    Tell that to the people of England, Scotland, and Wales. Tell it to the people of Australia. Listen to the words of Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, and a host of other left leaning politicians.

    Sure, those companies are in business to make a profit. That I accept. But the NRA with a membership of only 5 million is credited by the left as having far more power than it’s numbers would suggest. That’s 5 million out of a population of an estimated 315 million. That’s 5 million members out of an estimated 100 million gun owners (while no official data exists, it’s estimated at 1 out of 3 Americans owns a gun). That’s a LOT of power attributed to a small organization. Non-member gun owners far outweigh member gun owners.

  38. We the People need to start filing law suits against these Libtards for Violating their OATH OF OFFICE ,they swore to UPHOLD THE CONSTITION OT THE UNITED STATES when before they took office.
    We need to start building a fund Nation Wide to sue all these Idiots that go against the Constitution .
    I’ll bet a few lawsuits filed against these people will stop them in their tracks ..

  39. Has anyone noticed that the birthplace of America & ALL of our freedoms, the cradle of our very existence, the New England & Atlantic coastal states have , with few exceptions – can you say California & Illinois, the most restrictive and oppressive gun laws in this “free” country of ours ? You may have also noted that all of the mass shooting events occur in “GUN FREE” zones. Maybe what is really needed in our schools is better reading teaching so those criminals who cannot read those signs will leave their guns at home! Yea, right !!!

  40. I don’t know if it was San Diego or not, but we had a suit which We the People won. Then a state judge (not sure at what level) put a stay on forcing the powers that be to comply. The last I heard, that ruling was under appeal.

  41. The entire state of Mass, can go to blazes as far as I am concerned. And that includes their POS baseball team! But how is writing an essay any different from answering a freakin’ math question as you must do in order to post a comment here?

  42. Do what I did. When I was applying for nonresident ccw in Massachusetts from my commi state, Connecticut, it took over 3 months to get my in person interview, then 3 months after I was accepted, I still had not received it. I called every day and still fell upon deaf ears. I called the Governor’s office, who is a Republican, and I received my permit less than a week later. Go over that POS hero’s head. Tell him to go shoot some black people and get off your back.

  43. Not to get too intellectual about it, but a study done at Harvard in 2007 says there is statistical proof that government attempts at gun control DON’T WORK. (The term “‘government” here would include egomaniacal police chiefs in Mass. and legislators and leaders in other well-meaning but misguided states, and a certain occupant living in a white house, and many liberal members of Congress.) Most of the world recognizes Harvard as having some relatively smart individuals on the staff and in the student body, capable of some serious investigating and conclusions to which WE SHOULD ALL PAY ATTENTION. But gun-control fanatics don’t want to know the truth. They just want to make a lot of noise that SOUNDS like it would create effective gun control, and the uninformed, don’t know and won’t take time to find out – that is, most of the general public follow along blindly thinking maybe they’re right. After all they’re saying the right words: “gun” and “control”. We are a nation containing too many uninformed, don’t care individuals, and worse, uninformed, don’t care politicians each with his or her own selfish agenda.

    Here’s a quote from the Harvard study at page 686: (Citations omitted)

    …if more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death, areas within nations with higher gun ownership should in general have more murders than those with less gun ownership in a similar area. But, in fact, the reverse pattern prevails in Canada, England, America, and Switzerland, [where the areas] with the highest rates of gun ownership were in fact those with the lowest rates of violence.
    A recent study of all counties in the United States has again demon-strated the lack of relationship between the prevalence of firearms and homicide. This inverse correlation is one of several that seems to
    contradict more guns equal more death. For decades the gun lobby has emphasized that, in general, the American jurisdictions where guns are most restricted have consistently had the highest violent crime rates, and those with the fewest restrictions have the lowest violent crime rates.
    For instance, robbery is highest in jurisdictions which are most restrictive of gun ownership. As to one specific control, the ban on carrying concealed weapons for protection, “violent‐crime rates were highest in states that flatly ban carrying concealed weapons], next highest in those that allowed local authorities discretion [to deny] permits, and lowest in states with nondiscretionary” concealed weapons laws under which police are legally required to license every qualified applicant. Also of interest are the extensive opinion surveys of incarcerated felons, both juvenile and adult, in which large percentages of the felons replied that they often feared potential victims might be armed and aborted violent crimes because of that fear. The felons most frightened about confronting an armed victim were those “from states with the greatest relative number of privately owned firearms.

    LIsten up Congress, and legislators in every state. A HARVARD study has ACTUAL STATISTICS (not just uninformed opinions) that say that the more guns people are allowed to possess, the lower the crime rate will be. Unrestricted permission to own weapons, and unrestricted permission to carry concealed weapons would only reduce the crime rate even more!!

  44. Back during the turmoil of the civil rights movements the courts overturned the literacy requirement for exercising the right to vote. That was deemed illegal, and about the same as Lowell, Massachusetts.

  45. sorry, but we DO NOT even need to get a ccw to carry what we want, how we want, much less write an essay, it is our RIGHT to carry, open or concealed ANYWHERE within the borders of the U.S., and we DO NOT need to pay ANYONE nor do we need ANYONES permission to do so…ANY IGNORANT MORON THAT THINKS DIFFERENT, WOULD BE SADLY MISTAKEN….

    1. Just out of curiosity, where did you come up with that position? I’m in now way being sarcastic or trying to mess with you, I’m a proud gun owner myself. Just curious as to how you came to that determination?

  46. Is this the only place citizens can get their permit in the state?. If permits are issued elsewhere in state would not this sheriff or town be required to honor it? Usually State requirements is good enough with a certificate. By putting more restriction on the citizens you let criminals, who don’t care about laws, have the upper hand on your law abiding citizens. Please keep in mind we have more people die by knife in the United States than any other weapon of choice. Besides, which of sheriff or city council have been issued their certificate to say they have passed a test to grade a essay. Maybe, the citizens should make them write a essay describing their job position and the requirements to hold that title and why they are the right candidate for the job. Next send it out to Governor and let him decide if they should have the job, plus require $1,500 fee for the Governor taking his time out to read a essay, before issuing a certificate of approval. Exactly they are public servants, they too must be held to a higher standard and requirements if they are willing to take away the rights of their citizens. Next, vote them out.

    1. @ E.S.,

      Unfortunately the State law requires you get permitted by the local law enforcement agency within the jurisdiction based on your address of residence. If there is no participating agency in your area, the law has a provision which then allows you to apply directly with the State for your permit.

  47. I think that guy needs to do a psych test to carry a weapon, I mean what a #$#@$ to infringe on an individual’s rights. Good thing I don’t live in Lowell, he’d be seeing me everyday!!

  48. This moronic chief of police is an absolute left wing, Bernie & Hillary Loving wacko that should be removed from office. Living in the great state of Texas and being raised around guns, makes me wonder why anyone in their right mind would want to live in these types of states and support these groups of morons.
    All I ask is that those of you from these areas, PLEASE STAY THERE. The current radical Islamic supporting president will head your way shortly. unfortunately for all of you, he will be bring all his administration and staff with him as leaders for the coming wave of radical Islamists that are ready to kill everyone in sight in areas (like yours), where nobody has a chance to defend themselves due to criminals like this police chief.

  49. The whole “shall not be infringed argument” is self-explanatory and needs no further explanation here, but how can anyone even conceive an essay requirement as a fair judge of whether to issue an ***“unrestricted right-to-carry” gun **********permit?************
    Concealed Permits fly in the face of the 2nd Amendment! ALL gun laws ARE NOT inline with the 2nd! Permit, who needs a stinkin permit?

  50. I cannot leave my opinion because the first amendment as well as the second have been infringed and I am therefore not allowed to address the authors of this constitutional violation of law with the proper curse words.

  51. The appropriate “essay,” in its entirety, should read:

    “This essay will be used as evidence in a federal lawsuit against the city of Lowell, Massachusetts, the Chief of Police thereof, and any other members of the municipal government of that city who have conspired to violate the Constitution of the United States of America.”

    1. Henry you are dead on… I wish the NRA would delegate and fund local PACs which could take on these legal mafioso’s… We need to crush them at the grassroots level…

  52. I used to live in Massachusetts a couple of years ago and moved to the South. All I have to say is WOW! You just can’t make this stuff up. When I first went into a gun store down here and told them I had recently moved from Mass., all they said was welcome to the real U.S.A. What’s ironic about the northeast is you have a ton of firearm manufactures up there.

  53. Taylor is the Chief Executive Officer of Lowell Police Department; He is not the elected Sheriff.
    In most New England States the elimination of county governments were eliminated by local voters, and while there remains Administrative Disrricts using old county borders those districts do still elect a County Sheriff Who in this area thst is called Middlesex County Lowel is situated.
    The sheriffs odffice andi its correctional facility are under The appointed officers at State Secretariats. And thenOffice of Deeds are both under State appointed Executive Office of Public Safety.
    Taylor is a politico who. Is building a feifdom under the local Gentry who support, yes gun control and al the latest Social Engineering led by Federal monies.
    If the people of Lowell feel that their Constitutional Rights are being violated by local police and officials then it is up to them to approach Sheriff Koutoujian.
    He is the man who Constitutionaly stands between the people and abusivepolice and government personel and offices.

  54. I will write that essay and here it is

    “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    It contains 26 words and says everything required and no cop in the country can dispute it. Each and everyone of them swore to defend this exact wording

  55. The Irony is that is these stupid people were alive during the Revolutionary War we would still be a British Colony. I can only imagine Paul Revere, Patrick Henry and James Madison are spinning in their graves saying “Who are these stupid people and how did they become Americans?” or “Are these idiots the ones, we fought for their freedom?” or ” Has any of these fools read the Constitution?”

  56. This is almost common place in RI – a shall-issue state – as well. While towns cannot impose their own stricter regulations on firearms or RIGL 11-47-11 permits, if you’re lucky enough to live in a town that does not flat out reject applications, you are probably still required to write a statement of need and a justification which amounts to an essay.

  57. Not a bad idea to make people write an essay to get a permit, keeps complete retards from getting a permit. And it is not like it is easy to just walk in and get a permit anyway. In Indiana, you have to 1)pay online to the state police $75. Then you have 90 days to 2) get electronically fingerprinted $12. And depending where you live this can be a pain in the ass, cause there are only so many places you can do it. (where i went it was only on fridays). Then 3) you have to bring $50 cash to your local police department to finish the application on certain days and hours. then wait 4 to 6 weeks to get your permit in the mail……….I would have rather written a friggin essay!!!!!!!!! : )

    1. Joedirt, I’m not sure you’ve read the article in full. In your case, the essay would’ve been an additional step to those 1-2-3 ones you described in your post…

    2. So you are OK with all gun laws. right? They are all Constitutionally correct?
      A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

      Where is the PERMIT clause here in the 27 WORDS?

      Simple Definition of infringe
      : to do something that does not obey or follow (a rule, law, constitution.) ( chiefly US )
      to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person’s rights)

  58. What is a “far left liberal agenda” when it comes to taking firearms away from people?? What is that? I think it is pretty childish to assume that the gun companies are going to let any politician get in the way of them making money. It is pretty obvious that the NRA is in bed with the gun manufacturers and they are trying to scare us into buying more guns cause the liberals are “gunna take rrr guns.” Every time the news or NRA claims we are going to lose our rights, everybody buys a bunch of guns, “just in case.” And the gun manufacturers swim in profits. No need to be scared, ain’t nobody takin our guns as long as gun companies are making loads of money, stress less my friends!!

    1. NRA has 5,000,000 individual cash paying members. Not just gun manufacturers. You should join if you are a 2nd amendment supporter. A bill was passed in 1994 the Bill Clinton era AWB. Something like it or worse could pass again without the NRA and other groups supporting the 2nd amendment. They are not just in bed with gun manufacturers. They help ensure American’s right to choice which firearm works best for their lawful purposes. Not a politician.

  59. Ok folks you can quote anything and everything you want. That still does not stop certain public officials from doing what they choose. Even Obama has stepped across the Constitutional boundaries in regards to immigration. It took the Supreme Court to stop him. That is what it will take with these government officials who come up with their own arbitrary rules. It’s that simple. Court cases need to be filed against these officials to show they can not infringe on our rights. No one person has the right to decide if another has the right to own a gun. Period! Americans need to stand up and say enough. If we don’t our rights will eventually disappear. Now bitch all you want and state whatever you want but in the end it will take a court case to ultimately stop this madness.

    1. Seems an unconstitutional rule, by an official abusing his power.
      When enough complain, maybe a constitutional lawyer will take the case to court and this type of crime will be stopped.

    1. Although I agree with you about the east sir, We out west in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming consider ourselves Americans and are gladly able to support the cause. Now having said that California, Oregon and Washington state can kiss off

  60. A state or a subdivision of the state cannot charge for the exercise of a fundamental right.

    Here is an example that establishes a standard for the protection of rights. Back in the 60’s, there was a voting rights case down in Texas. The state of Texas was imposing a poll tax on the voters prior to letting them vote. The Texas U.S. District Court said in U.S. v. Texas, 252 F.Supp 234, 254, (1966):

    “Since, in general, only those who wish to vote pay the poll tax, the tax as administered by the State, is equivalent to a charge or a penalty imposed on the exercise of a fundamental right. If the tax were increased to a high degree, as it could be if valid, it would result in the destruction of the right to vote. See Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 244, 54 S.Ct. 444 (1936).

    [Note that the court reiterated the fundamental premise of law expressed by Chief Justice John Marshall in the landmark decision of McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat 418 at.431 (1819), that “the power to tax is the power to destroy.”]

    The Texas district court went on to quote from the Supreme Court case of Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U.S 528 at 540, 85 S.Ct. 1177, 1185 (1965):

    “It has long been established that a State may not impose a penalty upon those who exercise a right guaranteed by the Constitution.” Frost & Frost Trucking Co. v. Railroad Comm’n of California, 271 U.S. 583. “Constitutional rights would be of little value if they could be indirectly denied,’ Smith v. Allwriqht, 321 US. 649, 644, or manipulated out of existence,’ Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339, 345.”

    That Texas federal district court held the poll tax unconstitutional and invalid and enjoined the state of Texas from requiring the payment of a poll tax as a prerequisite to voting.

    Now a rare legal procedure followed that ruling. The state of Texas appealed. Not to the court of appeals, but directly to the Supreme Court. And in an equally rare circumstance, the Supreme Court took the district court’s opinion as its own and affirmed the Judgment based on the facts and opinion stated by the district court. See Texas v. U.S., 384 U.S. 155 (1966)

    To charge for the exercise of a right if both fundamentally and fatally flawed. A good lawsuit seeking damages is both in order and proper. Time to get-r-done.

    bob minarik – Rochester Indiana –

  61. As a LEO for last 16 years, I must say I’m ashamed and embarrassed for myself and my fellow LEO’s when I hear of things like this! He obviously forgets he took an oath to uphold and defend the US Constitution! We are public SERVANTS! We are to serve the public, not oppress them! We are not the end all be all…we are merely in place to serve and protect… This “chief” has obviously let the power go to his head and has forgotten his oath and true purpose! Shamefull and embarrassing…

  62. I agree with what you have said and as I mentioned in my other post and replies, I will continue to live my life as a honest and hard working citizen so long as I am allowed to do so. I will never give up, give back or allow my firearms to taken from me. For all those who may have read this post please understand that it is not about the firearms themselves, rather the issue surrounding the firearms. If we allow these gun grabbers to have their way with this issue it will not be long until they take away our right to free speech our rights under the 3rd, the 4th, 5th and so.given an inch and they will take a mile.
    Stand straight, stand tall and stand together.
    Refuse to be a victim.

  63. Imagine what would happen to the crime rate in Lowell if the Chief and city council would put the same energy and focus on the criminal as they do trying to violate our Constitutional Rights.

    1. garfield…this is exactly my sentiment. Stop fooling around with silly gimmicks to selectively strip honest citizens of their birth right.
      Set up one law that complies with the U.S. constitution, impose it throughout the state, and maintain consistency by treating everyone the same way. For this moron to place himself as the sole authority to say yes or no based on an essay, is beyond stupidity.

  64. I like the way you think and what a slap in his (Chief Taylor’s) face. I am an honest citizen and am representative of every honest citizen in America. I have worked hard, helped to educate and raise my family and teach my children the value and rewards of hard work and education. I am and have been a firearms owner my entire adult life, forty-six (46) years and never broken any laws or rules pertaining to hunting or firearms. I own and plan on owning and keeping my firearms just as I have for past 46 years and will never give them up. The only way I will ever become anything less than a honest citizen is if these anti Second Amendment gun grabbers institute any laws which will make me a felon or criminal. I hope that every gun owner in America feels the same way and acts accordingly.
    No one can better protect me than me.
    Refuse to be a victim.

  65. This strikes me that the Sheriff of Lowell, MA, is not in compliance with state law and is actually violating state law by stepping on the rights of the citizens under his jurisdiction.

  66. You might as well run a story about San Diego County in California. The “may issue” is alive and well under the current Sheriff. Just like in the above story you have to have just cause (personal protection is not enough), write an essay to prove that, and participate on one, if not two, oral interviews. It is basically impossible to obtain a CCW in San Diego. Last year there was a law suit started against San Diego’s stance on CCW issuance, but I don’t have the facts on it’s outcome.

  67. So you say and I quote. “The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were Written in the 18th Century, using a Dictionary Written in the 17th Century”. You should consider that it was that same Eighteenth (18th) Century Constitution and that same Seventeenth (17th) Century Dictionary which gave to you and preserved for you your right to free speech. With out that 18th century Constitution and that 17th century dictionary you would not be commenting on this subject. There are no misinterpretations or reinterpretations here. Our founding fathers words meant precisely what they say both in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Just as the Ten Commandments were carved in stone so was The Bill of Rights and The Constitution of the United States of America.

  68. This is the “crime of the week”?. Then you obviously haven’t heard of Georgia’s HB 731. It proposes to “confiscate” semi-automatic weapons and high powered rifles along with “high capacity” magazines. This is the first step in a police state. Hitler did the same thing before starting WWII. Go to and sign the petition!

  69. As a former resident of Lowell MA. And a MA. CC permit holder, I can add to the discrimination allegations against the Lowell police department. In certain towns and cities under the Massachusetts system it is common knowledge that any and all requests for a concealed carry license will be denied. The only caveat being someone with a personal relationship with someone within the police department ranks. Lowell is notorious for this “never issue” policy. In many parts of the state there is a “shall issue” policy. Some parts have a “may issue” policy and then you have Boston, Lowell, Lynnfield etc etc that are for all intents and purposes are “never issue” sections of the state. Basically, anytime you create a system that allows a single individual to set policy, you risk having a dictatorship. Massachusetts system is archaic, cumbersome and broken. Instead of lamenting the situation in a single location of the state, contact GOAL and help change what you don’t like or if you are lazy,….. just move.
    Roman Smith, U.S. Army retired

  70. this mandate would be quickly overturned in court as arbitrary and capricious. residents are not told the bases upon which their essays will be judged—grammar? length? use (or avoidance) of certain words? political viewpoint? type of weapon they have?

    chief taylor needs to be booted out of office as a lesson to other aspiring totalitarians.

  71. It would seem to me that the Lowell, MA PD is setting the city up for a civil rights law suit. What of law abiding citizens who are illiterate or unable to put a coherent sentence together. Do the uneducated and economically disadvantaged have any less rights than the educated and affluent? This is a case of lazy city council and PD.

    Lowell does not want to do the hard work of preventing crime in their city by addressing social issues and contributing back to the less fortunate in the community in an effort to make Lowell a safe and pleasant place to live. They would rather take the easier route of targeting specific groups and stripping them of their rights.

    Ed Sottile
    Westborough, MA

  72. Not only should there not be such rules as Lowell, Mass. is imposing, but it should be required that each local police dept. provide FREE training classes to instruct novice shooter’s proper safety lessons….without registration…but verification of those classes to appear on any issued permit.

  73. The State of Massachusetts DOES HAVE an “Open Carry” and “Concealed Carry” Gun Law. Unfortunately, it’s NOT a Uniformed Law of the State. Each City, Town, Township, etc. HAS the Right to Implement their OWN Gun Law Restrictions, Which CANNOT be Overwritten by the STATE. So, Lowell IS NOT Breaking Any Laws…

    1. Secundius, Lowell IS breaking the law! … Lowell is breaking the constitutional law, the 2nd Amendment, clearly!! They have no right whatsoever to deny/restrict the people like they are doing.

    2. @ Dave.

      This is the SAME State which Conceived and Implemented the “Disqualification” Act of 1787, which was ALSO Adopted by the US Congress in the SAME year…

    3. Secundis, technically, Lowell is within the letter of the law. But, it should be obvious to any that read your article how foolish the state is by allowing each jurisdiction to present it’s own version of how the 2nd amendment should be attended. In short, while a Mass. inhabitant may be within the laws of his own city, he becomes a criminal by entering another city within the state. How can the populace even live with that kind of foolishness?

    4. @ Secundius,

      Not true at all. Every Massachusetts gun law must and will be applied and enforced “uniformly” across all jurisdictional boundaries throughout every “City, Town, Township, etc.”

      Therefore, local Massachusetts governments DO NOT have “the Right to Implement their OWN Gun Law Restrictions” all willy-nilly as you would have readers believe. Nor is it anywhere near the truth, as you’ve incorrectly stated, that such local laws, “CANNOT be Overwritten by the STATE”.

      As a matter of fact – the State can and often does “OVERWRITE” whichever local laws it pleases, given that all local ordinances were only ever allowed to be created as the direct result of the State’s ultimate authority. Especially given it is the State’s authority which allows local governments to create their own laws to begin with. If the State gives it, the State can take it away.

      More accurately stated – the way it really works is that Massachusetts allows local governments to implement reasonable ordinances as long as they do not conflict with any existing State Statutes.

      What this means is that the Massachusetts State legislature has taken an approach that chooses to limit preemption for certain laws and thus provides local governments a bit more latitude to adjust their ordinances that more closely fit the needs of the local populace.

      However, in no way does this mean – “Each City, Town, Township, etc. HAS the Right to Implement their OWN Gun Law Restrictions, Which CANNOT be Overwritten by the STATE.”

      Every local ordinance ever created in Massachusetts is relentlessly subject to scrutiny and review as to whether it conflicts with a higher State Statute – as is the people’s right to do so. This ordinance proposed by Lowell and passed by the Council is no different, and will be challenged. And once determined to be in conflict, Lowell and the Council will in-fact be considered to have “BROKEN THE LAW”.

      Regardless, Federal Law trumps State and Local laws which Lowell and this Council have overwhelmingly broken. As usual, just coming behind you to clean up your tidbits of untruth.

    5. It would seem then, that much time is being spent clarifying someone’s interpretation of what the 2nd amendments means. So, while everyone’s laws must comply with the general oversight of the state, why not simply have a state law that applies to everyone. Allow an exceptional incident determine the need for a point of the law to be argued. As it stands, with every level of govt. allowed to impose it’s own unique rules, a constitutional lawyer is required to examine each time someone steps outside of the law in each municipality. This can only serve to obfuscate and waste much time and funding that might be spent in a better cause.

    6. @ G-Man.

      If the Massachusetts Supreme Court DOESN’T “Overturn” this Law, SIR. Then your “Colander” has Holes and DOESN’T Hold Water…

    7. @ Secundius,

      As usual you reply as if you are arguing an opinion. I can assure you that everything I corrected you about was done with facts, of which most people should know are not subject to argument. So again, you fail to make a point.

  74. I understand the sentiment (I am from CA) but the point is that you should never even be asked to do so. By saying that you’d go along with this concept, you’re telling the anti gun crowd that they can level just about any requirement on you… and that is not the word nor intent of the Constitution.

  75. This is supposed to be a place to exchange ideas, not the 4th grade English class. You better back off… I have spell check and I know how to use it! lol

    1. As a former NJerseysan whom now enjoys TX, I lived that nightmare of permitting. I in fact lived in BC where all (?) of the interviews occurred. Would have been nice had you gone to Loretta’s hometown for a clip.

      Also, as a former ANJRPC Board member, I know all too well what my friends in arms have to go through to enjoy a little “freedom”. God, don’t get caught going to the range or coming home from the range”the wrong way”.

      I still love Jersey, but there has got to be a better way. There was a case of man whom was kidnapped over state lines to PA or OH, threatened with his life, and NJ STILL denied his permit!! I know he appealed, but I don’t know if he won. I think Evan Nappen was his attorney(?).

  76. Just shows how far we have come to a socialist/Communist Gov, we are becoming. SAD very sad to see how far we have fallen

  77. It’s MA. Just about the same as CA. A majority of voters in these states can’t stand liberty, it’s just to dangerous.

    It sucks to live in these states as a freedom loving American. That’s why I left CA.

  78. Nice thoughts, however, the anti-gun crowd doesn’t give a rats arse how responsible law abiding gun owners are. They intend to rid the world of firearms so everyone can sit around campfires singing kum bah ya.

  79. I stand by what you have said and am sure there are many others who agree with you. We as a nation should not and can not allow the Blumebergs’ and the Soros’ in our country to turn our country into a dictatorship. I hope the citizens in Lowell can and will see to it that these types of politicians will not be permitted to ravage our rights and not be held accountable.

  80. Your understanding would essentially be wrong. At the time of the Founders, it was understood that every man had the god given right to defend himself and his family and his neighbors, as well as put food on the table.

    The 2A was penned solely with regard to defense of the nation. Following the Revolutionary War, the combatants went home to their businesses and families. The Continental Army was reduced to an estimated 87 men total. The national defense was comprised of citizen soldiers in the same way Switzerland, Finland, and Sweden do. The Founders did not believe in having standing army. This view was based upon the words of James Madison and George Mason who authored the 2A, to the individual state legislatures in order to get them to ratify the Constitution, which the several states did.

    Thereafter, for about 158 years, the people freely bought every new firearm technology, from rifled barrels, to paper cartridges, then metallic cartridges, from single action firearms to repeating and even automatic firearms. Then came the election of FDR, and an assassination attempt shortly after his election. The Congress jumps up with the National Firearms Act (in violation of the Constitutionally prescribed method for changing anything which had previously been understood as a natural right. And they used the same excuse then as Sen Feinstein uses today… public safety. Well, the criminals they wanted to takes those nasty guns from continued to have and use them. The law abiding people gave up their weapons or became law breakers.

    1. @ DaveW

      Unfortunately after the “Militia” Act of 1792. They DIDN’T Believe in an “Unorganized” Militia EITHER.

  81. You are entirely correct and if I may add. I am curious as to who is doing the Chiefs job serving and protecting the citizens from the thugs, rapist and murderers while he “Chief William Taylor” is busy occupying his time insulting the honest citizens and infringing on our rights. When it comes time to renew the position Chief William Taylor presently holds, perhaps the voters will be more perceptive in their views of the duties and obligations the chief is to concern himself with.

  82. No one cares about the constitution anymore. Those in office do what they want and the people bitch and moan on chat rooms and blogs but do not rise up and demand that the constitution be followed. We are getting the government we deserve.

    And to think this is happening where the patriots rose up in 1775.

  83. I do not believe that any anti-gunner can point to a single criminal and say that their actions prevented that criminal from using a gun to commit a crime. There are criminals who will use a gun, and there are criminals who won’t. It’s just like the Death Penalty. No criminal has ever been dissuaded by the Death Penalty from omitting a crime. The only thing that can be said is that that individual will never hurt anyone again. (Odd how progressives can end the lives of the unborn in number Hitler only dreamed of, yet they will fight like hell to save a lizard, fish, bird, or death row prisoner.)

    I do not believe that any anti-gunner can point to a mentally impaired person and claim they kept that person from getting a gun.

    I do not believe that any anti-gunner can point to any law abiding gun owner and claim that their actions kept that owner from doing something bad with their guns. I own a number of firearms. I began buying them when I was 10 years old. I’m 68 now. In all that time, outside my duties in the military and law enforcement, no gun I have ever handled went insane and committed criminal acts. The same applies to both my grandfathers, my father, my uncles, and even to my anti-war brother who owned a 1911 and enjoyed going to the range, when he wasn’t teaching martial arts. In large part, that was because we served in the armed forces, in wars and between wars, and because we taught each new generation

  84. First, the anti-gun leaders KNOW the truth, but they spin it to get the sheep to follow them because their agenda, born out of the drugs of the 1960s when they believed they could turn the world into a utopia, is the ban just like England, Australia, etc. The screw with the data from the FBI and the CDC to make the situation look far worse than it actually is.

    On top of that, the left has always been quick with nanny laws and regulations in response to a non-existent problems so that they can a) feel good about themselves, b) dupe people into believing what they say, and c) gain control over the masses.

  85. The ACLU was founded by an avowed communist to defend communists during the McCarthy investigations. They didn’t care about non-communists. ACLU contracts out a large portion of the cases they take, and the lawyers they contract with are under contract to follow the ACLU “bible”. The cases they care about most seem to be those cases which will weaken our society by using the Constitution against us, and those cases which will bring them the most publicity. Every case they can get before the Supreme Court results in a large payoff, paid for by the taxpayers, whether they win or lose.

  86. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS relieved them of that responsibility. Police are not required to “protect and serve” anyone.

    I know that a super majority of law enforcement stands with the people and the Constitution. The ones who don’t are those who feel they owe an allegiance to the people who voted for them or hired them for their position.

    Yes, there will be those officers who lean to the left, however, just like veterans, the majority of them are pro-gun, own personal firearms, and believe that they are supposed to protect and serve. This came out of a national poll which went into many factors (time on the job, size of community, sex, age, rank, and much more) and which overwhelmingly rejected gun controls.

  87. The town and all of its involved officials including the city council, mayor, and police chief needs sued. I doubt any insurance will apply to provide a defense. As a matter of fact, I would specifically word the lawsuit such that it would not trigger insurance defense coverage. Then be sure publicize how much the mayor and the police chief are costing the taxpayers to defend their anti law-anti gun agenda. Send out flyers suggesting a new mayor might know of better uses for taxpayer money than defending ideological lawsuits. Keep the money and political pressure on the mayor and police chief but especially the mayor and city council both of whom could fire the police chief. They might throw the chief under the bus to get out of this mess.

  88. O n 1 June 1967, I swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution (not the President, or a Chief Justice, or a Congressman or Senator) against all enemies foreign and domestic. Nothing in that oath said anything about my right to pick and choose what parts of the Constitution I was to defend. It was ALL of it. Same with defending the nation. Nothing was said about my right to defend based on race, creed, religion, etc. I served to defend ALL the people whether I agreed with them or liked them or not.

    Politicians, like this police chief, usually take some kind of oath quite similar to the one I took. They have no right to pick and choose what they are supposed to stand up for, or who they serve. They are supposed to serve us all. However, for a long time, they have seen We the People as the servants. Many of them forget their oaths faster than the words cross their lips. It is time they were reminded of their oaths of office, and to quit aiding one group or another over any other group.

    1. @ DaveW.

      In 1972, I Swore and Signed the Same Loyalty Oath you did Sir. Proclamation 104 was in that EXACT SAME Constitution That I Sore an Oath to Protect, And yet I wasn’t aware of it’s Existence BEFORE 2015. If I had KNOWN back in 1972, what I KNOW NOW. I probably might NEVER OF HAVE SWORN TO THE LOYALTY OATH…

  89. Somewhere in the Constitution is a prohibition against the changing of formerly accepted policies in order to prosecute someone or to remove their rights. All these pesky gun controls are designed to do just that… make it easier for a gun owner to violate a law and subsequently have there 2A right suspended, and to totally take that right away. I see such conduct as being no different than the way they avoid the Constitutional mandated method of changing a right/amendment, adding a right or amendment, or altering same. The prescribed means is by amendment in which the whole of the people are directly involved, and the conduct of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches violate this mandate because they know full well, if it were left to We the People, it would never pass. The government backdoors such changes, and yet they made sure to use it to prohibit alcoholic beverage, and another to reinstate alcoholic beverage… and alcoholic beverages are not enumerated rights.

  90. Intellectual liberals will never come to grips with what makes America great. The ideals and guidelines set by our Constitution are the building blocks of our nation. Those that continually try to take away rights given to all American’s are morally bankrupt. Sadly, even our president is among this elitist and snobbish group of liberals who think they know whats good for those American’s they look down their noses upon. American’s who don’t have their same beliefs are put down, said to be backward and even called stupid.
    Their arrogance is easily visible to everybody but their narcissistic selves, Time is up community organizer know-it-all, its time to give America back to those who still believe in her.

  91. Clearly there is no need for CCW in Lowell. The police do such an awesome job, no crime what so ever . Well i think thats a load of crap. The leaders of Lowell suffer from cranial rectal inversion , yes thats right their heads are stuffed right up their rectums .

  92. The fact that the disadvantaged are unfairly burdened by the chief’s procedures is a violation of Civil Rights! A case for a violation of the Constitution would be a tough case to win. The US Supreme Court has not affirmed that CCW is a Constitutional Right.

    1. what part of “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” do these morons not understand. They need to be thrown out into the street with their families off the public dole

  93. When they file the law suit they need to name the sheriff an city council PERSONALLY. Nothing gets a liberals attention like taking money out of THEIR pocket.

  94. Perhaps the Chief of Plice in Lowell should write an essay explaining why this is a good idea, then allow the residents of Lowell to “grade” it.

  95. Unbelievable, these people should be able to arm and defend themselves if need be with out all the garbage in-between. This man is way out of line to bad he can’t be voted out of his position!! Just how long does it take for a 911 dispatch call to get officers to the scene of a crime??? This man is DMF………….

  96. Can I get some clarification? When was the last time a murder or shoot spree has taken place by someone with a CCW? It seems to me that all the crime and violence is committed by people who would be ineligible for a CCW in the first place. Logic fails to penetrate the liberal mind.

  97. Im guessing the chief of lowell made it into his position from senority he has accrued. I can almost garruantee he was not appointed to his position by the people of lowell, had the people made the chief write an essay on why he should be the chief of police in lowell then he probably wouldnt be in his position. Good for the goose, good for the gander. Hope the chief knows propper grammer and punctuation.

    1. After reading some of these comments, you people should be glad you don’t live there. Almost all had some error in spelling and punctuation. Kinda funny.

  98. Offer: I volunteer to write the essay for any Lowell resident who purchases a copy of my latest novel, “The Permit” from Amazon. It’s “faction,” based on the murder of my eldest son, who was LEGALLY carrying a concealed weapon. An idiot mistook my son’s BlackBerry phone for a gun….and shot him to death in a crowd of ~100 people. The techno-thriller book features a black ops counterterrorism team that settles the score via high-tech weapons and aircraft.

    The book also is highly recommended for all concealed-carry permit holders.


  99. Dear Chief Taylor,
    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”

    Essay complete

    1. @ Brady

      Befor 1792, it was “Unorganized Militia”, Not “Well Regulated Militia”!

  100. I actually don’t see a problem with this. In light of recent events, I think it’s important to take a ‘bend not break’ approach, to minimize the current confrontation, and stop pointing at the Constitution. Maybe reading the Constitution and all of the Amendments should be a requirement with a quiz afterward? Maybe the $1000 is high, but mandatory certified classes and background checks should be the norm everywhere. I don’t think it should be easier to own a gun than get a Driver’s License. I’d also like to see more citizens using non-lethal weapons. Let’s try to put a responsible face on gun ownership so it will be clear that people who circumvent the System are the problem, not responsible Gun Owners, the same way a driver with a suspended license can kill people with their car and nobody wants to ban cars.

    1. To quote an American Founding Father

      He would sacrifice a bit of safety for security deserves neither.

    2. @ RumRunner,

      I actually do “see a problem” with this. Being able to “see a problem” or not is fundamentally what divides most people. The important question is really: Why can some of us “see a problem” while others cannot?

      The answer is: Because there has always existed a matured and realistic minded breed of people that are naturally more aware than others. This stems from our inner primal human survival instinct which allows one to “see” the simple brutal truths of mankind, while others cannot.

      All of mankind possesses some basic instincts encoded within their DNA; however it exists to extremely varying degrees from person to person. This would explain why some are quite successful in life while others are not; and most of the time without regard to their level of education. But more importantly it explains why not everyone is able to make it out of a deadly situation.

      This is the same premise behind the fight-or-flight instinct which the brain naturally processes in fractions of a second without hesitation, otherwise sure death may result. Some of us simply have this gift more than others, and so in-the-end, this is what actually determines the survival of the fittest. This has ruled our existence since the beginning of mankind and will continue to do so no matter how civilized we think we’ve become.

      Those that do not possess as strong an ability to naturally “see” truths are also very susceptible to the outside powers of suggestion and therefore become easily manipulated into unwittingly advocating untruths which serve the deceptive goals of others.

      Being afflicted with less instinct also leads these people into the false perception that mankind has actually evolved to be more civil. However the truly gifted instinctive “seer” knows in reality that man has not changed at all, but instead has momentarily become pampered by the wealth of societal technologies that has only temporarily numbed the natural primal instincts.

      One of many examples would be hunting skills, which ALL mankind possessed at one time. Those skills have instead been traded in for the conveniences of the meat counter at the local deli section. However, take all that away, and man will instinctively hunt once again or even kill one another for that last morsel of food in order to survive. This is because it is an inherent characteristic which can never be “evolved” out of our DNA, and thus an undeniable truth that some are unable to “see”.

      The biggest separation between the “seers” and the “non-seers” is that those unable to “see a problem” are further manipulated by a deceptive government which creates the illusion that we have progressed into an advanced and civilized state with nothing to fear. However, the true “seer” is blessed with a mind that is immune to the constant barrage of corruption that otherwise leads the weaker minded astray, and therefor quite unprepared when the brutal primal instincts resurface and are used for evil. I give you ISIS.

      A true “seer” need only take a simple look around and is easily able to assess the brutal truths of primal deaths and mayhem perpetrated by a supposed civilized man all over the world – and thus reveals the brutal truth about the less than modern state mankind really exists in.

      It should be noted that the inability of those that cannot “see” the truth is not always a cognizant choice on their part. Most are oblivious to their own limitations and therefore should not necessarily be chastised as they had no choice over the selection of their DNA. However, there is something wrong once it is pointed out to them and they continue to presume they still know best.

      Those that are made aware they cannot “see” reality and truth as clearly as others should instead seek to accept the guidance of those that can. This is why we have leaders, and we have followers. A true “seer” is a natural-born leader, where a “non-seer” is not, and thus should accept their role as a follower.

      There is nothing wrong with being a follower, but there is something wrong with a follower that believes they are a leader. This is probably the foremost source of all problems in society today and the reason we have such politically incorrect idioms as, “There are too many chiefs and not enough Indians”. A perfect example is Obama.

      It should be painfully clear to everyone by now that Obama was never meant to be a leader; or rather he was not a “seer” of the truth which, as I’ve already stated, is a prerequisite to being a good leader. Obama’s denial in accepting his limitations of being unable to “see” the real truth has since thrust the World into a tumultuous state of chaos.

      So, now you may be asking how my dissertation here ties into your comment. I had to lay out the foundation for you to understand why your comment shows your DNA is wired for flight rather than fight.

      You lack the inherent instincts to detect the need to fight the dangers that come with giving even an inch to an increasingly corrupt and tyrannical government. And thus you should assume the role of a follower instead, and allow others with more inherent skills to lead the way.

      It is this same lack of instinct which allows you to “bend” in order to “minimize the current confrontation”. Such weakness has allowed you to fall prey to the mind manipulation I wrote of earlier. The reality is there is no “confrontation” to “bend” to in the first place. It has all been invented by a corrupt government for your consumption, and you are biting.

      You have been manipulated into accepting an invented necessity for all this gun regulation nonsense despite the Constitution that contains a very specific law that restricts the government from any form of regulation of any kind over firearms. The citizen soldiers of yesteryear that fought to establish and defend this great Country would laugh in your face at your ridiculous notion that they should pay high fees, be forced into mandatory certified classes, and background checks before bearing arms in defense of their Country.

      The current state of our government and politics has got you believing the Constitution is somehow negotiable and therefore subject to contravention by subordinate laws, and thus has led you to believe there is a valid “confrontation” underway. However, the reality is there can never be a “bend approach” where the Constitution is concerned and thus there can be no real “confrontation” to “bend” to.

      The anti-gun liberals can pretend all they want that the Second Amendment doesn’t mean what it says. However, those of us that bear the DNA to instinctively “see” the truth understand just how important the Second Amendment is for our survival. The Constitution is the bedrock principle which holds this country together. Without its strict compliance, America no longer exists. So you either lead, follow, or get out of the Country. There is no compromise.

  101. It’s my understanding that one of the primary intents of our Second Amendment is to allow the citizens of our country the right to protect themselves from the tyranny of government. Lowell’s police chief’s rules sound tyrannical to me.

  102. Lowell Mass, the chief should be looked up, he is infringing on the Constitutional rights of law abiding citizens that wish to own and carry a weapon equal to those that intend harm on them. The chief has a problem with power, it’s a struggle for him to relinquish power to normal everyday people because we’re are below his level. If I lived in Mass I would be seriously offended, obviously the chief feel the citizens he serves are stupid…..

  103. “….firearms safety class costs between $75 and $125, plus $100 for the license application fee.”

    My last concession to these whacks and “their” requirements that would GIVE ME the ‘ability’ to exercise my “God Given” right to self-defense by any appropriate means, is my ‘current’ CCW license. If my state continues to increase those “fees” to obtain that thing, started at $15 and is now over $80(!), I will continue to be armed, “civil disobedience,” WITHOUT that, all but worthless, license!

    I do believe that anyone ‘choosing’ to go armed should exercise due responsibility by acquiring the expertise and knowledge to do so safely and intelligently. That, however, does not grant some ‘government entity’ the “license” to REQUIRE some course, unless that same entity is willing to bear the expense – i.e., NO ADDITIONAL EXPENSE is incurred by the firearm owner!!

  104. Who does he think he is? And who in their right mind would let someone like this dictate what is still a constitutional right to bear arms. If I were the people in this town I would sue him for violating my constitutional rights. I’m sure there is a lawyer out there that would take this case and win hands down.

  105. First, anyone familiar with Massachusetts knows that you already had to write an essay to get a concealed carry permit. Then they decide whether to give you your license or not. If you write in the essay because 2A says my right to bear arms shall not be infringed, it will likely get kicked back. Even if they do issue your permit, it may have a restriction on it for target shooting, hunting, sporting, work, etc. If so, you can’t legally carry for self-defense. If you live outside of Mass and want a permit, you must pay $100 per year and each year you must drive or fly to Chelsea, MA for a face to face interview before you will get your renewal. It’s completely ridiculous and there is nothing you can do about it. So the only additional requirement with Lowell is that he is also making you take this exorbitant class that is only offered once per year. I understand that they have a very high crime rate in Lowell but it is not due to law abiding citizens who choose to protect themselves.

  106. I think the Chief should write an essay as to how this stupid requirement will lower gun violence and then write a ten page essay on why he should keep his job. What a moron.

  107. Congress and the LAW have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHTS to invoke against American Citizens when it comes to the FACT that WE have a Federal Legal RIGHT to own, carry and pursue ALL our RIGHTS in the Constitution of the United States of America to OWN AND CARRY FIREARMS and NO LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY ESPECIALLY STATE LAW OFFICERS AND NATIONAL PARK RANGERS HAVE ANY RIGHTS WHATSOEVER TO CHANGE LAWS FOR THEY’RE OWN TAX LEVIES AND PERSONAL AGENDA’S! OUT OF THE QUESTION! NO POSSIBLE WAY! NO EXCEPTIONS AND WITH NO F.B.I. or A.T.F. or C.I.A. change in handbook PLAY! This has always been against the LAW in this Country and someone should ARREST THE CHIEF OF POLICE in Lowell Massachusetts for CONDUCT OF UNBECOMING and to Misguide and Disrespect the Office of which he now Holds in Contempt.

    1. @ David

      Doesn’t the Town Council pass Laws that the Chief of Police Enforces. I’ve NEVER heard of a Town, that DIDN’T have a Town Council and/or Mayor.

    2. Yes. Please note, the last sentence of the 4th paragraph, states, “In fairness, the Chief did not make the rule, he merely brought it up to the city council who approved it, but you get the idea.” So, the city council did pass the law, but it was the chief of police who pushed for it and the chief’s discretion as to whether or not to approve the permit based on his designee’s grading of the essay.~ Dave Dolbee

  108. i got c’s and d’s in english , l guess i’m too stupid for massachusetts .
    i’ll keep my dumbass in mississippi , the 13th best state for bearing arms . the hell with massLIBERALetts . i think i misspelled that word , oh no mr. police chief is gonna fellz me !

  109. My essay would be about how forcing people to write essays to practice their rights, as defined in the Constitution, is a violation of said rights. Stapled to said essay would be a summons to appear in court, hopefully with the help of NRA-ILA or the Institute for Justice. He clearly doesn’t understand the 2A right as a necessary requirement to ensure life and liberty despite boneheads like him, who would seek to prevent access to guns to protect ourselves from criminals. He is not a first responder, the victim is. He should know better. My thoughts and prayers go out to the good people of Massachusetts who are dealing with this. I hope that you are finding ways to protect yourselves while this tragedy unravels. Just think if the local Sheriff asked us to write essays to exercise our right to free speech/religion/press? This Sheriff has no authority to regulate this way and is in violation of the law.

  110. Try jumping through all these hoops just to be told we never give unrestricted licenses to first time applicants regardless of how good your letter and references are.

  111. Another “Masshole” doing what they do best, creating problems instead of fixing them. Remember, it’s not a “State”, it’s a “Commonwealth”. ( Just ask any Masshole, they’ll tell you that ) So what, so is Kentucky, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, and they don’t have a bug up their ass about it.

  112. As bad as this example, there’s an even worse bill pending in the Oregon state legislature, where psychotic anti-gun democrats hold a narrow majority for the first time in decades, and are using it to ram through all manner of gun control laws. According to the Oregon Firearms Federation:

    We have received a preliminary copy of one of the most dangerous pieces of anti-gun legislation we have ever seen.

    While the concept was first floated by Sen. Ginny Burdick, D-Portland, there may be other legislators behind it.

    This bill eviscerates due process and turns Oregon into a Soviet style collection of secret snitches.

    Basically if someone makes a claim that you are, in their opinion, experiencing a “mental health emergency” you lose your right to buy a firearm!

    Included in the list of people who can make that accusation against you are such “mental health experts” as a college art professor, your boss, or an aunt you have not seen in 20 years!

    Once the accusation has been made, it’s your problem to get your rights restored!

    You are not even allowed to know who made the accusation and you are not informed that your rights have been taken away unless you attempt a firearms purchase. You are not allowed to know how long the “hold” on your rights is!

    The person who made the accusation is immune from any liability for making the accusation that takes away your rights.

    People will be able to make fabricated accusations against you online!

    We cannot stress enough how dangerous this proposed bill is.

    If the past is any indication, efforts will be made to ram this bill through with as little discussion as possible.

    Your rights are in the cross hairs. If this bill becomes law, you are guilty until proven innocent.

    Just imagine a woman whose dangerous husband has threatened to kill her. She wants to buy a gun for protection, but a “family member” (maybe the husband?) makes an anonymous accusation, online, that she is experiencing a “mental health emergency” and now her rights are gone! Not only will she be unable to protect herself, she will have to jump through impossible hoops to “prove” she is not mentally ill!

    We have run into some downright evil legislation before, but this is beyond anything we have ever seen. Have a doctor who does not like guns? Your rights are gone. Have a boss who’s mad at you? Your rights are gone. Have a crazy cousin who thinks no one should have a gun? Your rights are gone.

    Of course, this bill has an “emergency clause” to make sure the people of Oregon cannot stop it at the ballot box!

    We will have more on this bill if it moves through the legislature, but we wanted you to know that the battle is on even before the session has started. We are going to need all the help we can get for what promises to be a very ugly 2016.

  113. There used to be laws in some states requiring citizens to pass a literacy test in order to vote. The Supreme Court struck down those laws because they infringed on the fundamental human right of all citizens to participate in the selection of elected officials. I wonder what the reaction would be if a state required citizens to take classes and pass an essay test as a condition of publishing a newspaper article, attending religious services, petitioning the government for a redress of grievances, or having access to legal counsel?1

  114. How ’bout an essay from the Cheif and every council member to the people they work for (the community) explaining what makes them competent and eligible to adversely alter the constitutional rights of the people that pay their salaries? Also included in their essay should be specifics about how this will help with the crime rate. If they don’t get a passing grade from the local gun club they can crawl back under their rock. Seriously, what are these people so afraid of?

  115. Essay on CCW in Lowell. Ma.
    CHIEF TAYLOR (any relation to Andy ?) I feel I should be given my CCW permit for the following reason…I hope this will suffice.

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed..

    Have you ever seen or read my essay before Chief Taylor, I think you have… Yours truly, James Madison…

  116. It’s about time we take our rights back the people of this country need to start waking up. How about next time the police or sheriff kill an unarmed man maybe he should right an essay on why he should have the right keep breathing an not be shot down like the scumbag that they are or the next time a president gets us into 2 illegal wars ask him to wright an essay!!!! We the people are being treated like sheep!!!! An it’s time we have a bloody revolution it’s time we make them feel the pain and suffering that we been feeling since the bush administration!!!!!

  117. Looks like a great entrepreneurial opportunity for accomplished essay writers! Of course, applicants could always take the Joe Biden “I’ll just copy my essay from someone smarter than me” approach!
    I hope no one is truly surprised by this…..

  118. Someone just needs to post one of the “acceptable essays” on the internet and everyone can copy it. Once you accepted one you can’t reject another that says the exact same thing.

  119. I visited the northeast, including Massachusetts, this past summer. They have some very fine people in the northeast who live alongside people like this police chief who warp constitutional rights into unrecognizable freedoms. Given the opportunity, they will take away 2nd amendment rights along with others as they see fit. Not a place where I want to live.

    Recently, I saw a question on Family Feud that had “Texas” as one of the states where “wackos” live. I can only imagine that we “wackos” are labeled as such because we uphold our constitutional rights including the 2nd amendment. To our brothers and sisters in the northeast who are tired of being subjected to people like this police chief I say, “come, visit us.” You may like it here, find a home, and come to realize we wackos love our country and the freedoms provided by our Constitution. By the way, I am a law enforcement officer (former full-time and now reserve), and I support the right of all citizens to carry firearms – handguns, rifles, concealed, or open, and I am absolutely disgusted by the actions of this police chief. I guess that makes me a wacko cop.

    As far as the Police Chief of Lowell, MA is concerned, if he remains on the job it is only because the town is infested by like-minded people. If the masses disapprove of his tactics he will either change or eventually be forced out, or a successful legal challenge will force him to abandon his new policies. And since most individuals do not have the deep pockets needed for legal action hopefully one of the many national pro-second amendment companies will step up and fund the battle.

    To those in Lowell, MA affected by this action I say fight for your freedom. You only lose it when you let someone take it away.

  120. Pretty much the definition of Infringement wouldn’t you say. I’d send in an essay that said “SECOND AMENDMENT”. If I didn’t get the permit I’d sue. The 1000.00 charge is discrimination against people with low income. It makes the 2nd Amendment to restricted to only people that can afford it.
    Even the people against guns should have enough common sense to see that this is a direct violation of our rights…..

  121. Like you, I am shocked that the city of Lowell would allow a blatantly racist mandate. It only took a moment of checking to find that Massachusetts has a racially divided literacy rate. With Hispanics and Blacks less likely to have the literacy skills needed to successfully comply with this mandate, it seems likely we will soon see the city of Lowell facing a federal lawsuit over 2nd & 14th amendment right.

    The city councils timing seems as bad as their judgment. The case will likely make it to court after the 2016 elections, so a reprieve from on high seems unlikely at best.

    Well Lowell should weather a major federal investigation, the chief, City Counsel and the mayor ………not so much.

  122. I do not live in MA but if I did and he could absolutely prove that this would stop one are all criminals to commit crimes with guns then he might get my support but he can’t . For any situation if there is a law on the books about anything adding 10 more or a 100 ore it will not stop the person who is willing to break that one law what makes these power control people think this willing law breaker cares about breaking 100 laws?
    Just enforce the laws and constitutional rights. Are they really stupid or is a grap for power?

  123. I am a Veteran and former Law Enforcement Officer.

    Having said that, I feel compelled to cite the recent experience I’ve had.

    Being an Oklahoma resident, the acquisition of a CCW permit does and always has required passing firearm qualification from a certified firearms instructor. The combined costs (background checks, application fees, firearm range qualification, etc.) involved in getting the permit can be a challenge for some less of the fortunate law abiding citizens, but it is what it is.

    On the other hand, for the last 1 1/2 years I was on assignment in a state that has no requirement for firearms training in order to procure a CCW permit, and quite frankly, when I would go to a public range to keep my shooting skills tuned up, many of the other shooters (who by their own admission had just acquired their permit) made me pretty nervous – their lack of handling experience appeared to be directly proportional to their lack of respect for the lethal capabilities of the weapon they handled.

    I would like to see a survey conducted, on a permit holders per capita basis, comparing accidental shootings between states requiring firearm training to obtain the permit vs. those that do not.

    I will reserve my opinion regarding the training mandate on the Lowell situation until the homework is done and the statistics can be reviewed.

    However, on the issue of the essay requirement, It’s BS! To require it in the first place goes against the intent of the 2nd Amendment, and for the opinion of one non-judicial individual to have the power to allow or refuse exercise of any Constitutional right absolutely reeks of dictatorship!!

    1. @ Rob Allbaugh,

      The bottom line is the Second Amendment specifically instructs the government that it is unlawful for them to infringe on the right of citizens to bear arms. This would include their implementation of mandatory training as a condition before being allowed to exercise that right. It just doesn’t get any more simple than that.

      As for your notion that training somehow makes a person safer with a guns, how then would this explain there being more incidences of mishaps by trained and certified professionals within military and law enforcement than all untrained civilians combined?

      Yes, as an LEA who is also a military reservist, I am aware of the mass number of us that carry on a daily basis which contributes to the increased number of mishaps versus private citizens. However, by your logic our training should prevent this all together, yet it does not. So how then can you apply such flawed logic and imply that it should be forced upon civilians as a prerequisite to exercising a Constitutional right?

      A person does not have to be trained to know what a gun is capable of. Most of these CCW classes are hours spent in a room being taught the law and use of force, not safe handling. Then they go on a range and fire a minimal amount of rounds. If that will make you feel safer the next time you encounter these folks then so be it. But the truth is no amount of training will compensate for stupidity.

  124. Here’s the irony, back in the day the courts decided reading skills could not be used to qualify people to vote, following this line of thought, considering the reading skills of certain groups of citizens and the dropout rate. then is it not racist to require a essay requirement to assess the 2nd amendment.

  125. Talk about overstepping your authority! Is it, that he is also refusing to recognize CCWs issued in other towns? If so, smells like Lawsuit time, he is in violation of state law. Baring all else, move away from the town and Mass. Passed through Mass. years ago. Had a black powder revolver on me. Got pulled over because of my (at the time) Kentucky tags. State Police saw the pistol and went ‘bat-crap-crazy’, even though bp could be carried legally anywhere in the U.S. (considered historic, or non-weapon in most states), except for Mass. Only a threatened lawsuit on my part, got me released. I departed Mass. as rapidly as possible, never returned, over 30 yrs. now. Citizens who want to legally carry should leave fro friendlier states, also.

  126. You have to wonder when you read garbage like this, what is the true intent? Are people who propose (LEO) and approve (city council) laws like this really so totally out of touch with reality that they fail to realize (or refuse) that it will ONLY affect lawful gun owners. Or are they more concerned with harassing those of us who will follow the law?

    If you folks want to stop the illegal use of guns, WE AREN’T THE PROBLEM. The guys who buy guns from friends or straw men, or from car trunks aren’t going to be slowed or stopped. Because, by definition, criminals are LAW BREAKERS.

    I’m getting really tired of these anti-2A imbeciles making our lives unnecessarily more difficult.

  127. That will stop those Pesky “Poor” Folks. Where in almost every State you can buy 3 to 4 fairly good Revolvers or Pistols. The Dictator Here in Lowell, Needs for someone to “Explain” the Law to him. Not only the Second Amendment, But Discrimination Violations WITHOUT Doubt the Ruler is in need of a Professor in American Civil Rights. He seems to believe he can Write “Executive Orders” With his Phone & his Pen. What Say Ye, Lowell?
    P.S. Get you a Chief Of Police, That Understands It is a Requirement for Him/Her to “Serve” the Public. This Guy needs an Adjustment.

    1. Sounds like another COPSIC, that’s Chief Piece of S–t In Charge, with is “Executive Orders”, also sidestepping the Bill of Rights. Time for a change. Voters,you can get rid of the City Council that is supporting this POS, then he can be fired. The present POS occupying the Oval Office will soon find himself out, also. U.S., it is time for a ‘housecleaning’. If a politician doesn’t support you right to defend yourself, vote in someone that does. It’s called: DEMOCRACY IN ACTION. Gun-grabbing politicians, your days are numbered,

  128. We spent a lot of money in Ma. for over 50 years.
    Past that now, retired Federally Licensed Firearms Dealer , Real Estate Brokers , Licensed & Bonded Auctioneer and traveler. I paid that fee for years , had to drive to Boston in person each year fingerprints & photo plus a new copy of Military form 214… NO more. Now we go around Ma. not even getting gas anymore. No hotels, restaurants, real estate, antiques, collectibles, buying not even a ham sandwich. Hope others do the same. Just as Manufacturers are moving to gun friendly states! What was once a proud state of many founding fathers, is now a pitiful state of affairs… Thanks for the chance to comment…

  129. Are you kidding me!?!? I have a better idea have this idiot of a police chief write an essay explaining why he is not a rights infringing socialist and if the people who are trying to exercise their God given right do not like his paper…they can fire him!

  130. The Chief whether appointed or elected is accountable to the voters. Same answer each and every time. In this case the citizens either accept a tyrant as cheif protector or they VOTE the responsible party out of office.
    Elections have consequences if you don’t vote or vote unimformed than you are part of the problem.
    All of these scholarly comments and nary a one with a solution.
    VOTE damnit, thats the solution!

  131. Hello all criminals! Lowell, MA is the next place you can rape, rob, an pillage, because the people there won’t have as many weapons as the general public anywhere else.

  132. The blatant hypocrisy is mind numbing. The ACLU and NAACP are all over local governments by hauling them into the Supreme Court with lawsuits the minute any attempt to enforce laws that require a person prove their US citizenship to vote – which is required by Federal Law; but you can hear the crickets chirping whenever the Second Amendment gets violated and ignored – which is also a Federal Law.

  133. Ahhhhh The NE, where freedom began – amid a lot of Tories. At least here in Mexifornia or Kalifornia it’s by county. Some sheriffs are very pro-gun, and others are not. The bad part of this is that you can get a CCW in one county and technically be in violation of the law in the next county. And, if the county in which the violation occurs wishes, they can bring charges, find you guilty, and you lose your 2A rights in the entire state. (I doubt this was coincidental.)

  134. W. O. W. I’m just wondering if in this Chief’s state, if he is elected into his position as with other states. If so maybe the citizens should request that he writes a assay explaining why he should keep and deserves his position with that Police Dept. If I’m grossly mistaken, I thought the duty of the Police Dept was to serve and protect. Which group of citizens is he serving an which is he protecting. I find this one of the most insulting acts to the citizens of Lowell. I am a Vet, have been an elected official, and almost 23 yrs in the criminal justice field and have not seeing or heard of anything more insulting or absurd. To me this is right up there as the way us Vets were treated when coming back from Vietnam again if this is an elected position maybe the citizens should demand an essay from him again stating why he even deserves to be in his position

  135. Police Department
    William Taylor

    Office Hours
    M-F, 8 AM – 5 PM

    50 Arcand Drive
    Lowell, MA 01852

    978-937-3200 (P)

    This is the person responsible for trying to circumvent the Second Amendment. I am not going to rant on and on about this individual and get myself worked up over what I see as pure anti- american government interference of our Constitutional Rights. As the author of this article has said, this police chief “William Taylor” has set the bar to a new low. I personally have never understood what makes individuals like the police chief think they can better protect me than I can. I often wonder who is ultimately responsible for harm that comes to the citizens after those citizens have been denied their Constitutional Right to defend themselves. Who do we sue because of the negligence brought about by people like Chief William Taylor? Who do we hold accountable for deaths of family and friends because of people like Chief William Taylor? At the very least I would suggest they are a accomplice to murder or manslaughter. Shouldn’t people like Police Chief William Taylor be sent to live with the same people he helped to harm the law abiding citizen? Perhaps we should all ask ourselves these basic questions. Who is protecting us when the intruder is in our midst those precious and few minutes while we are waiting for the police to arrive. Who protects us form the thugs on the street when those thugs are beating the elderly and the helpless senseless? Just because “The Law” says its wrong to harm others doesn’t mean the criminal isn’t going to harm you. The laws are words on paper and have no meaning without respect and the criminal has no respect for the law. No one can better protect you than you. As long as there are people on earth there will always be criminals on earth and the honest hard working people will always be faced with the cowardice acts of the criminals. If we are lucky we will have those precious and few minutes to protect ourselves and your Second Amendment gives the right to do so. Do not allow people like Chief William Taylor put you in the position of depending on them. They are not there with you. They cannot stop the intruder. Only you can do that. Stand strong. Stand tall. Stand for your right to protect yourself.

  136. He’s just another Liberal Nazi who wants to be in control. If it’s a “shall issue” state, there is legally no reason he can require anything other than what state law requires. I wonder if Mass even has a state gun rights group like we have here. Remember, this is the same state that let Ted Kennedy off the hook for drowning Mary Jo Kopechne in the back of his car after he drunkenly drove off a bridge, so why would it be a place that cares about people’s rights?

    1. @ Mikial.

      Roughly 37? Groups. But the Measure, is there’s a Large Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) Groups operating in Massachusetts. And they Operate in 46 States, including Virginia. Four Relatively close to ME, in Alexandria, Ashburn, Herndon and Sterling Northern Virginia…

    2. @Secundius

      I don’t see what having an MS13 gang in the state has to do with fighting this kind of attack on law abiding citizens 2A rights. If there’s that many 2A rights groups, they need to pool their resources and take this guy down.

    3. @ Mikial.

      Emergency Managers, are appointed by the Governor in Every State. Lowell, Mass. LIKE Flint, Michigan Has One Too. That being the case, they can Implement ANY “Draconian” Measure THEY WANT. And are ONLY answerable to the Governor of Mass…

    4. @joedirt

      Nazis tend to follow a totalitarian philosophy of absolute control over everybody and everything. For examples, i recommend Googling names like Pelosi, Obama, and Bloomberg.

    5. Joe – if you scratch the microscopically thin skin of almost any liberal, you’ll find a fascist

  137. The world is full of tin-pot dictators. Lowell’s Police chief is, though I don’t know for sure, most likely anti-gun and very likely anti-civilian gun ownership and concealed carry. I’m also pretty sure that Lowell’s Mayor and city council are also behind this clear infringement of Lowell’s residents’ God given rights to self defense. Because this set of requirements is almost laughable in their vagueness (grading an essay?) and over the top costs for a CCW class taught by Police officers who may or may not be certified to teach such a course that I am sure the NRA, Gun Owners of America and other RTKBA organizations will sue the city. Because of the two recent Supreme Court rulings that have forced Chicago (of all places!) to issue CCW permits and allow gun stores to operate, Lowell’s eventual loss in court is almost guaranteed.

    This goofy action will be reversed, but the downside here is that I am sure it will be years before the final ruling forces Lowell to back off. While I am not wishing serious harm on anyone, the best case for justice is for someone in Lowell to apply for and be denied a CCW permit with very little justification, and then be seriously harmed due to not having the ability to defend themselves. If this did occur, and, again, I don’t want anyone to get hurt or killed here, the civil case against Lowell could result in a massive transfer of money from Lowell to the injured party or their family.

  138. The essay should be on why Lowell needs a new chief of police – what the heck is with the local yokel using the permit? Shouldn’t that be a state function?

  139. Such a culture shock, I moved from Florida to Mass, . I needed a LTC for my pistols I already owned. License to Carry, but depending on the city you live in is whether you actually get the right to carry, yeah funny name for a pistol permit. Expecting the worse, living in the town of Easthampton, MA. the police department and in particular the processing LEO were great, and I got my “NO restrictions” LTC. Now by renewal time, I was living in the town of Northampton, right next door to Easthampton. Complete difference. I called to schedule my appointment for renewal, they gave me a hard time about the time I wanted, they said I had to be there at 8 A.M. for my appoint, when I got there already about 6 others waiting, been there since 7:30 A/M. and they did not start seeing anyone till 10 A.M. and not so nice. I think I would have never got a carry permit from them. A guy I worked with living in Springfield, MA said you had to have a LTC for a year before you could ask for carry permit privileges. And then you had to go through the complete application all over again with another $100. Well I am glad to tell you I am back in Florida, the wife and I are happy to be back and getting a permit is so easy compared to MA, glad to be out of that state.

    1. The socialist republic of MA is one of a couple of New England states that don’t recognize the US Constitution, and I think these small town cops really get off on that. Life is kind of quiet so they make up arguments to hassle the locals, just because they can. So unprofessional! Get stopped by one of these dopes and you’ll think you’re talking to Captain Klink!

  140. WOW! There really is some special kind of kool-aid required to be consumed as a political figure in the State of Mass. Obviously Lowell is holding up their end of the madness. As if the thought that 10 rounds of ammo at a time is less deadly than any other capacity. But then, magazine sales are brisk in Mass. The people there need to stand for their rights and refuse. Get their permit form an adjoining township or whatever alternate avenue is available.

  141. I would just submit a copy of The Federalist Papers #46. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, it damn sure good enough for the sheriff !

    1. XVIth President of the United States of America, Abraham Lincoln: Proclamation 104 of November 13, 1862. The Confiscation Act, aka The Suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus in America Act, aka “Suppress Insurrection, to Punish Treason and Rebellion, to Seize and Confiscate the Property of Rebels, and for OTHER PURPOSES Act of 1863. NEVER REPEALED.

    2. And isn’t the irony here that freedom was largely defined by the original settlers of MA. Would not they be turning over in their graves to see this.

  142. In the 1770s, and beyond, a great many colonists could neither read nor write, let alone use proper grammar. It’s quite doubtful the Founders would have levied such a requirement. If they had, they probably could never have raised an army of colonists to overthrow King George.

    1. You notice that Sheriff’s are mentioned at the beginning of the article. A large majority of them believe that the Second Amendment means what it says. In most states Sheriff’s are elected in a local election and are known as Constitutional Officers. That is why they answer to the citizens and not the local political machine, and if they honor their “Oath of Office” they uphold the Constitution of their state and the nation. They will not honor laws or ordinances that violate either Constitution. The Chief of police is a political appointee and answers to the local city council, board, alderman, or whatever the governing group is called. Many police chiefs are professional chiefs who rarely worked on the street and have been in administrative jobs most of their careers. They go from one chiefs job to another and in many cases walk the straight and narrow lead of their bosses to keep their jobs. They are just politicians in a police uniform. Just remember that the police chief is appointed by the board who is elected by the citizens. The citizens need to flood the council’s phones and jam the council meetings calling for the removal of the police chief and letting the council members know that next election they will be looking for a new job. Its up to the local citizens to either take political action or roll over and play dead. Even if you don’t own a gun, remember that in the next election, people like Bloomberg and George Soros will be pouring millions of dollars into national, local and state elections to try to take away your Second Amendment rights and push their far left liberal agenda. You shouldn’t be willing to give up any rights that were given you by the Founding Fathers. Once they are gone, you will never get them back.
      “God Bless America”

    2. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were Written in the 18th Century, using a Dictionary Written in the 17th Century. The NRA, just can’t Reinterpret the Constitution and the Bill of Right, by using a Dictionary Written in the 20th Century. If they (the NRA) were allowed to be able to do that, What prevents anyone from reinterpreting the HOLY BIBLE the SAME WAY.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.