ONLY A TINY fraction of Massachusetts residents who apply for firearms licenses or identification cards are turned down, suggesting the state’s reputation for restricting gun use may be overstated.

Just 1.8 percent of those who applied for Firearms Identification Cards (FID) and licenses to carry concealed weapons between 2010 and 2015 were rejected, according to state data. Monson in western Massachusetts is the strictest community in issuing licenses. Between 2010 and 2015, the town issued 1,502 FID cards and licenses to carry. It denied 121, a rate of more than 7.5 percent.  On the other end of the scale, Duxbury issued nearly 1,100 permits while rejecting just two, none since 2013.chart.2

The state’s low rejection rate runs contrary to the narrative of gun rights advocates, who allege that police chiefs in Massachusetts regularly abuse their discretion in denying licenses.

Under state law, police chiefs in cities and towns issue licenses within parameters that include statutory reasons for denial, including a felony conviction, a domestic violence restraining order, and a history of drug abuse. Applicants must also be US citizens. The chiefs also have broad discretion to refuse licenses. For example, chiefs can reject applicants if they deem them a risk to public safety, if their reason for needing a gun is not acceptable, or if they are homeless.

In Massachusetts, FID cards and Class A licenses for large capacity guns, which also allow the holder to carry a concealed weapon, are good for six years. The state used to issue Class B licenses to carry for non-large capacity guns such as handguns, shotguns, and single-shot rifles, but a 2014 law eliminated that category. The data requested by CommonWealth from the state Firearms Records Bureau covers all six-year licenses issued by communities between 2010 and 2015.

Jim Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners Action League in Northborough, says the state’s numbers are misleading. He says police chiefs regularly abuse their discretion and make it more difficult for people to obtain licenses they should be allowed to have. Wallace says some chiefs require applicants to write an essay on the state’s gun laws and state law sets the fee at $100 for a permit, much higher than most other states.

The fact that so many residents are awarded licenses is testament to the perseverance of the applicants not the ease of the permitting process, Wallace says. “All it shows is that people are very determined to get past any hurdles they have to get past in order to exercise their constitutional right,” he says.

Wallace also claims the state’s denial rate is low because the information on the denial is never sent to the state. “It’s one of the things we continue to face. A lot of people get denied before the information even gets to EOPSS [Executive Office of Public Safety and Security],” says Wallace. “What we see is the demand for training has been very high for years now. That’s where we see the anecdotal evidence. We really don’t have a good idea of denials because some of it happens before they’re in the system.”

Officials dismiss Wallace’s claim. While there may be isolated incidents of chiefs telling applicants they will likely be denied, the officials say the numbers are so small they probably wouldn’t move the needle.

“People do make mistakes in life. Maybe they have a disqualifier in the past and I’ll give them time to consider whether they want to appeal,” says Westfield Police Chief John Camerota. “Eventually, it gets entered into the system.”

Camerota has among the lowest rates of denials in the state, turning down about one-half of 1 percent of the nearly 4,700 license applications in the past six years. Camerota says he’s “probably more liberal” in issuing licenses than many of his colleagues around the state because he prefers not to use his discretion outside of the statutory restrictions for disqualifying someone. It’s not a part of the job he relishes.

“I’d actually like the state to handle all the licenses,” he says, though acknowledging he’s in the minority among his peers. “Sometimes it’s a gut feeling [to deny a license], sometimes it’s based on fact. I don’t have the wisdom of Solomon. At times, it’s frustrating.”

Dr. Sandro Galea, dean of the Boston University School of Public Health, recently co-authored a study of the prevalence of guns in the United States. The report, considered one of the most comprehensive studies yet done on gun ownership, found 22.6 percent of households in Massachusetts have a gun, a number he said was “quite low” compared to the rest of the country. Galea said between the results of his study and the data obtained by CommonWealth, it is a “manufactured narrative” that law-abiding citizens are being denied a permit for a gun even if they qualify.chart.1

“Most people are not denied,” says Galea. “It’s just not borne out by the data. There’s been a well-orchestrated, well-financed effort creating a particular narrative around guns that there is a general sense of being denied guns. Frankly, gun checks don’t work so far. I think our numbers are probably accurate.”

John Rosenthal, a gun owner who is the founder of Stop Handgun Violence, says the state’s laws are not intended to prevent qualified people from owning guns but rather to stop guns from falling into the hands of the wrong people. He points out that since Massachusetts passed its groundbreaking gun control law in 1994 and updated it twice since, gun-related deaths have dropped by 60 percent in the state.

“GOAL [Gun Owners Action League] and the NRA continually misrepresent the truth and sell fear in order to sell more guns,” says Rosenthal. “Very few people are denied in Massachusetts and the system is working. Massachusetts has common sense gun laws that make it harder for criminals, terrorists, and dangerously mentally ill people to legally buy guns.”

Rosenthal says the discretion granted to police chiefs under Massachusetts law can prevent tragedies. He says Omar Mateen bought a semi-automatic rifle and handgun just days before slaughtering 49 people at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, even though he had been interviewed and followed by the FBI. Under Florida law, the licensing authorities can only reject applicants for gun permits based on strict exemptions. The fact that a person is on the terrorist watchlist or a federal no-fly list would not prevent him or her from obtaining a permit in Florida. In Massachusetts, by contrast, police chiefs can subjectively take more factors into account when granting a license.

“Thankfully, police chiefs in Massachusetts have discretion in licensing,” says Rosenthal. “Omar Mateen would have a much more difficult time buying handguns. There’s no question in my mind he would have been denied in Massachusetts.”

11 replies on “Mass. chiefs approve most gun permits”

  1. Since when do a free people need a cops permission for anything? Massachusetts has regressed into a police state. King George III must be rolling over in his grave laughing.

  2. Mental health is the avenue to gun control..

    American Psychiatric Asso: Half of Americans are mentally ill..
    After crafting by politicians and Media all will be crazy except for them..

    300 million prescriptions for psychiatric drugs were written in 2009 alone..
    Your children on medication for ADHD?
    Single woman with children diagnosed with depression?

    be careful what you ask for

  3. There are over 370 “mental disorders” listed in the latest version of the
    DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.) The list includes
    “Tobacco Addiction Disorder” among other equally mundane and ridiculous
    so-called “mental illnesses.”

    If the DSM is the standard by which politicians wishes to remove our rights
    to own guns, then I’d guess 90% of the American people could probably be
    classified with a mental disorder of one kind or another.

    BEWARE, BEWARE

  4. The author is using statistics to produce a false narrative. Since the rate of denial of a full carry permit in MA is so commonplace, the People have been beaten down and will not apply only to get a denial on their records. The rate of denial for home possession and defense may be low, but an unrestricted permit to CARRY is more often refused than “granted” by authorities.

  5. Let me see if I have this straight…

    All the leftists are calling for Law Enforcement reform, which is code for we hate and don’t trust the police.

    Okay, then we don’t trust them with our rights either.
    Especially when it is Police Departments like the one in Gardner MA that violate constitutional rights in the name of they are in charge of your gun rights…

    See http://www.comm2a.org/55-projects/235-storm-v-erickson for information on this violation of rights by the Gardner PD.

  6. Josh Rosenthal doesn’t know what he is talking about – apparently the author struggles as well.

    The authors could have interviewed anyone they wanted for this article but chose to go with josh rosenthal – an outspoken critic of gun owners – he speaks out of both sides of his mouth. When Massachusetts residents complain about gun licenses being restricted – they are not referencing being denied. They are referencing the unfair practices employed by cities like Lowell, Boston and Worcester etc that only allow firearms to be carried while hunting or on the way to the range

  7. There is a blatant error in this piece.

    The author claims ” Applicants must also be US citizens.”

    Just a little court case from 4 years ago. This disproves the author’s assertion that one need be a citizen to apply for a license.

    Fletcher v. Haas, 851 F. Supp. 2d 287 – Dist. Court, D. Massachusetts 2012

    I am no lawyer, nor am I a reporter, yet I was able to fact check this in just a few moments.

  8. It’s not as simple as the author seems to state.

    First, you are prohibited from obtaining a License to Carry, by statue, if you have a criminal record.
    So, if you have a record, you’ll not apply. Even if you did not know this before you start the process, when you take your State-mandated firearm safety course, the Instructor will tell you this.

    This means that the people that apply are not prohibited by statute.

    So, then, why would a person that has not been convicted of a crime be treated as though s/he had? Gut feeling? A hunch? What other areas of our lives are subject to this sort of pre-crime scrutiny? “You look like you like your booze, so no Driver’s License for you?” Don’t see that one going over big.

    The 1.8% of people denied have been denied a right not because of any court finding, but because……why?

    Those in favor of “Discretion” say it’s because the Chief of Police knows the residents on the town. Perhaps in a small one. But in the larger cities that’s laughable. Some towns require that an applicant jump through non-statutory hoops, to apply. Again, would this fly with a Driver’s License? No.

    Abridgement of rights based on the opinion of an official in a position of power is un-American. Persons without the wisdom of Solomon should not make Solomonic decisions.

  9. The 1% figure doesn’t factor in how many licenses are issued but “restricted”. The former Chicopee police chief NEVER issued full unrestricted licenses. A “target” restriction makes an LTC useless

  10. Absolutely true, Boston does not issue “No Restriction” Class A, Unless you are connected in some way. It’s a total farce. Grew up the next street over from the LT. who issues the licenses, I was told in no uncertain terms that I would not get a “No Restriction” Class A. So these instances don’t even get recorded….

  11. Imagine jumping through all theese hoops just to vote , and in the end you were denied because of someone else’s gut feelings .

Comments are closed.