Gun Control in Lowell, Mass.

My View by Jim Yacavone

It was reported recently that persons applying for a license to carry (LTC) a concealed firearm in Lowell, Mass., have to write an essay to obtain the license. Conservative commentators are outraged claiming that the ordinance is an unconstitutional infringement on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Curious, I obtained a copy of the law. 

It is not an ordinance but rather a new policy promulgated by the Lowell Police Department and approved by the Lowell City Council.

The policy provides for two types of LTCs, one for occupational purposes and an unrestricted one. Among other things, an applicant for an unrestricted LTC must furnish the police department a written supplement to the application which provides “specific reasons that the applicant believes support granting” the LTC and identifies “the applicant’s proper purpose in seeking an unrestricted LTC.”

I suppose it goes without saying that Lowell is a left-leaning community. It is represented in Congress by Democrat Niki Tsongas, one of the more liberal Democrats. Registered Democrats outnumber registered Republican by four to one.

There are several things that are outrageous about the policy. First, it provides no standards to limit the police department’s determination of what constitutes an appropriate reason or purpose for denying an unrestricted LTC. This means that the department has unfettered discretion to decide who gets a license.

Suppose an applicant writes that he or she likes guns as a reason for wanting an unrestricted LTC? Nothing in the policy prevents the police department from denying the license on the ground that the applicant is a gun nut and therefore a threat to the public.

Suppose an applicant says that his or her purpose in seeking an unrestricted LTC is to have protection in case the federal government tries to take way our civil liberties? (Which, incidentally, was the thinking of many of our Founding Fathers.) Nothing in the policy prevents the department from denying the license on the ground that the applicant may be a member of an anti-government militia organization.

It is precisely to prevent such arbitrary exercises of government authority that the Due Process Clause prohibits granting open-ended discretion to government authorities to enforce a law or regulation.

Second, requiring a written explanation of why an applicant wants an LTC is tantamount to requiring a literacy test as a precondition of exercising the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The last time I looked it was unconstitutional to require a literacy test as a condition of exercising the right to vote. Why, then, does Lowell believe it is okay to require one to exercise a Second Amendment right?

Finally, the very idea that a citizen should have to provide a reason or a purpose for exercising a constitutional right should be offensive to every American. We don’t have to give a reason or provide a purpose to exercise other constitutional rights such as the right to petition our government (First Amendment) or be free from unreasonable searches and seizures (Fourth Amendment) or be informed of any charges against us (Sixth Amendment) or have a trial by jury (Seventh Amendment) or not undergo cruel and unusual punishment (Eighth Amendment).

Why is it any different when it comes to the Second Amendment? The answer is simple. When it comes to rights they like liberals vehemently oppose any restrictions. When it comes to rights they don’t like liberals have no qualms about overlooking the Constitution and restricting personal liberties.

Surely there must be someone, even in liberal Lowell, who believes in the Second Amendment and is willing to challenge the policy on constitutional grounds. If so, I predict a victory for the plaintiff.

That’s my view. What’s yours?