News

Between the Lines: A Gun Owner’s Resentment

Why make it expensive and difficult for law-abiding residents to possess firearms?

Comments (12)
Wednesday, August 27, 2014
Tom Vannah photo
Matt Barron and Ron Wozniak

I wish I’d said something like, “You can have my hundred bucks when you take it from my cold, dead hands.” I know I’d have gotten a laugh.

Instead, I asked the police officer if he’d take a check.

I was sitting in the police station in the rural town in Franklin County where I live, working with the officer to complete my renewal application for my gun license. Based on a law passed in Massachusetts years ago, those of us who want to lawfully possess a firearm need a Firearm Identification (FID) card or a License to Carry (LTC), which has to be renewed every six years at a cost of $100.

The previous week, just as Gov. Deval Patrick and House Speaker Robert DeLeo were busy congratulating themselves on a new gun control law the Legislature passed and the governor signed this month, I’d received a scary-looking mailer from the Massachusetts Department of Criminal Justice Information Services.

“Dear Resident Firearms Licensee,” it began. “Your current [FID] or [LTC] is due to expire in the near future. Due to a high increase in license applications, fingerprint-based background checks are taking longer than usual. We urge you to start your renewal application as soon as possible.”

Before 1998, an FID was valid for life and cost $25. I was one of the 1.2 million Massachusetts residents who were affected by the 1998 law. At the time, most gun owners did the smart thing and renewed their firearms credentials immediately. But I was busy working, buying a house, starting a family in those days, so I didn’t have much time for hunting or shooting. Foolishly, I failed to heed the warnings of my friends, who told me that if I didn’t renew my FID within 90 days, I’d have to take a firearms safety or hunter safety course before I could get my license back.

After letting my FID lapse, I stopped hunting for a few years because I didn’t have the time to take one of the required courses. Deeply annoyed that my license suddenly wasn’t valid for the rest of my life, I took small comfort in not buying my Massachusetts hunting license for several years; the state lost money on that deal. Eventually, my desire to hunt again compelled me to take a hunter safety course—it was actually a superb course, but required a significant commitment of time—and pay my $100.

Over the last decade, I’ve put a lot of time and money into complying with the state’s gun laws and its somewhat related hunting laws. In my view, I’ve done my part, fulfilled my obligations, complied with the regulations. So to receive a letter warning me that “fingerprint-based background checks are taking longer than usual” makes me testy. Of my $100 filing fee, my town’s police department will keep $25, the State Police will get $25 (and do far less work than the local cops) and $50 will go into the state’s general fund.

In my view, if the licensing process were truly intended to keep guns out of the hands of criminals rather than making gun ownership difficult and unpleasant for law-abiding people like me, some of that hundred bucks would be used to expedite applications, which are all automated anyway.

 

No doubt, for many readers, this will all sound like the whining of a gun nut, a Fox News-addled angry white guy. Given my desire to possess deadly weapons, is it really too much to ask that I obtain a proper license? With all the gun violence we see nowadays, doesn’t it make sense to tighten up access to guns, even if it makes things a little harder for lawful gun owners?

I don’t think owning a few guns makes me a gun nut, and I don’t watch Fox News, but I am white and middle-aged and, thanks in small part to the reactionary press for “tighter gun control” in the wake of several high-profile tragedies such as the school shootings in Newtown, I get a little grumpier every day.

Dismiss me if you will, but I’m not alone. And not all gun owners are Republicans or NRA members. Not all of us fit so easily into President Obama’s 2008 description of small-town Americans: “They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” (Well, I am frustrated by Clinton-era trade policy, but that’s another story.)

A few days before I renewed my license, I took a ride out to Chesterfield to meet with Matt Barron, a political consultant and Democratic activist who refuses to conform to his party’s view of guns and gun control. Barron said he regards recent efforts at gun control in Massachusetts as politically theatrical but ultimately ineffective. He said he also sees in the recent legislation coming from Beacon Hill—what many mainstream newspapers have called a “sweeping overhaul” of the state’s “gun-safety” laws—a high degree of “elitism” and “anti-rural sentiment.”

Barron, who grew up in the Boston area and began hunting as a kid, said that with political control centered in the heavily urbanized eastern part of the state, the concerns of people in rural parts of the state go mostly ignored.

“Until campaign season, that is,” Barron said. “Deval Patrick stood in my kitchen [when he was running for office] eight years ago.” The governor hasn’t been back since, Barron said.

The violent crime that ultimately drives the gun control debate is mainly an urban phenomenon, Barron said. “There are no drive-by shootings in the Hilltowns,” he added, borrowing a line he picked up from Dylan Korpita, the young Republican running against State Rep. Steve Kulik in the 1st Franklin District this fall. Kulik, a long-serving Democrat from Worthington, has historically enjoyed strong support from gun owners. Barron believes that by supporting the recent gun control legislation, even though it also had the support of the Gun Owners Action League, Kulik may have made himself vulnerable.

“Deval Patrick might be able to ignore the wishes of rural voters, but candidates in some of the legislative races can’t,” Barron said.

We were joined by Barron’s neighbor, a retired VA nurse named Ron Wozniak, who’s spent hundreds of hours attending hearings on the gun legislation Patrick signed Aug. 13. A lifelong hunter, Wozniak said he stays involved in gun issues because he worries that many politicians would “ban all guns,” despite assurances to the contrary. While Wozniak said he understands and accepts the need for some gun control but feels that the lion’s share of regulations add burdens to legal gun owners, leave open to wide interpretation the question of who is “suitable” to possess a gun and ignore the deeper problem: “most people shooting each other on our city streets don’t bother to get a license.”

Later, as I drove along the heavily forested road from Chesterfield to Williamsburg, I thought about all the people who, in the wake of the Newtown shootings, looked to their elected leaders to pass laws that might prevent it from happening again. Despite the differences I may have with them—differences based on our different life experiences and expectations—I suspect I have far more in common with them than I do with the politicians who’ve shaped gun laws over the years. If nothing else, I think we can agree on this: if our goal is to stop gun violence, political theater isn’t working for any of us.•

Comments (12)
Post a Comment

Wake up. This is not about crime and violence; this is about the systematic dismantling of a socially conservative voting bloc. The gun controllers see the 2nd Amendment as a rallying point for people who disagree with all the failed leftist policies that we've been saddled with the past several decades. The gun grabbers feel that, if they remove guns from the equation, they can fracture this voting bloc and thus usher in another round of morally bankrupt liberal social and economic policies.

Massachusetts gun owners need to understand that the gun control movement hates your guts. They want to neutralize you politically, stigmatize you socially, and isolate you culturally. They hate you because, as long as you have a gun in your hand, you are beholden to nobody. The thought of the freedom that is attendant to gun ownership terrorizes the gun grabbers. Don't forget that.

Posted by Pete Flanagan on 8.27.14 at 19:34

Is your day job standup comedy? That is comic genius, Pete Flanagan. The monsters under your bed are not real.

Posted by SDudgens on 8.28.14 at 9:24

Don't kid yourself, owning and posessing a gun makes you sociopath and a "gun nut" in the eyes of those of us who don't see the need to arm our citizens with weapons of mass human destruction.

Enjoy your 2nd ammendment while you can, it won't last long and soon enough the time will come to disarm America.

Posted by tiedyeguy on 8.28.14 at 13:10

So when Obama came to Worcester did Don Berwick critize Obama’s support of free trade agreements which has changed factories into empty buildings throughout MA and the USA? I do not think he is that different.

I seem to read about many guns being used to make the United States Independent, as well as to end slavery. So the Union Army and the abolitionists were sociopaths?

Anyone with a fifth grade reading level could read the laws and know that mental illness is a cause for losing one’s right to have a gun, under the older laws. In the case of the rich Lanza family, the Governor of Connecticut chose to not use that law, as he will choose to not enforce other laws, as will the governor of Massachusetts.

Wozniak is correct, the anti gun nuts would ban all guns, for the honest citizens. Criminals and police such as in Ferguson Missouri would still have guns.

I point out that these politicians presided over a system which allowed Tracey Bennett to be murdered while their buddies in the probation department were supposed to be monitoring the perpetrator. So under their watchful eye he was able to get a gun and kill someone.

Posted by Robert Underwood on 8.28.14 at 15:31

"Enjoy your 2nd ammendment while you can, it won't last long and soon enough the time will come to disarm America." - this is an interesting statement.

For one, gun control supporters, always start out with "we do not want to take your guns, we just want a few common sense laws to make everyone safer". I think this commentor correctly represents the true goal of gun control, all guns should be owned by the wealthy and none by "ordinary people"

Second, we should all look at what prohibition did to the country. If guns are outlawed, prohbition will look like kids play. I see many people that are against civil rights, say "your pea shooters would make no difference to the ATF and Army". That may be somewhat correct, however, they forget that the people that work for LE organizations, took an oath to the Constitition and most will follow that oath over unlawful orders. The 700 million privately held guns is a lot of guns.

Third, the females and minorities are now begining to understand that they have a responsibility and ability to protect themselves. So, gun control groups can not depend on women, gays, and black people to vote the whay they are told to vote, at least on this issue.

Posted by Lee Cruse on 8.29.14 at 5:56

This gets so tiresome. Every "conversation" about gun laws goes the same way-

All these people want to take all our guns away.

No we don't.

Yes you do.

Rinse, repeat.

That prevents ever having an actual conversation about solving the very real problem of gun violence in our country. Which seems to be the goal of the NRA. So congratulations, guys! The rest of us who aren't at one extreme or the other are really sick of getting caught in your moronic crossfire.

Posted by SDudgens on 8.29.14 at 7:28

It's both sad and indicative of their mental illness that the gun nuts dig an even deeper hole when they try and substantiate their need to be able to kill other humans.

Posted by tiedyeguy on 9.3.14 at 8:39

kjshfakhkjhskf

Posted by doctorseo on 9.7.14 at 7:40

To tiedyeguy,

We are nut gun nuts. We want the ability to protect our property, enjoy hunting, and target shooting. You take away our gun rights, this will give criminals open season and I would love to hear from you after your house has been vandalized and your family no longer feels safe because you have no way of protecting the them. But then again you may not have thought of such things. or don't care. Get your head out of the sand.

Posted by falcon008us on 9.9.14 at 7:35

Cooking Counseling and referral of high salary when the school day nau an

Posted by can ho tan phuoc 11 on 9.26.14 at 20:32
Vietnamese School of Hotel Management Australia will be the cradle wings for future hoc nau an culinary artists of Vietnam can reach out to the world with your friends
Posted by can ho on 10.2.14 at 21:14

I seem to read about many guns being used to make the United States Independent, as well as to end slavery. So the Union Army and the abolitionists were sociopaths? clash of clans pc

Posted by eveni on 10.14.14 at 8:37
Comment:

Name:

Password:

New User/Guest?

Find it Here:
keyword:
search type:
search in:

« Previous   |   Next »
Print Email RSS feed


In Satoshi We Trust?
Outside the Cage
How solid is the case for organic and cage-free egg production?
Between the Lines: Practically Organic
Does the organic farming movement make perfect the enemy of good?
Scene Here: The Kitchen Garden Farm
From Our Readers
Profiles in Survival
Young business owners in retail-rich Northampton get along by getting along.
The Burning Question
Neighbors of a proposed wood-burning plant in Springfield cry foul air