Bruce is having trouble exercising his Second Amendment rights in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Even though the law says that the government must take action on his application within 40 days, he's been waiting more than three months. His protests are met with more of the same; inaction.

Can anyone explain to me how this isn't anything more than a de facto handgun ban in the City of Boston. I mean, hey, if you can't get what you want through legitimate legislative channels, order those who enforce the law to violate the law to suit your particular agenda.

It's the Massachusetts way.

Now, does anyone think for one minute that if the authorities acted this way in denying a federal housing loan to an African-American resident of Boston, or a marriage license to a gay couple in the city, or a driver's license to someone based solely on their age, that there wouldn't be hell to pay and reams of legal paperwork being filed by the ACLU on behalf of the oppressed minority?

ACLU Policy #47: Gun Control

The setting in which the Second Amendment was proposed and adopted demonstrates that the right to bear arms is a collective one, existing only in the collective population of each state for the purpose of maintaining an effective state militia.

The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms.