Gun owners from across Massachusetts and New England will be gathering at Boston Common on Saturday to rally in support of their Second Amendment rights and in opposition to the sweeping new gun control law enacted earlier this month. The rally is one of several large gatherings that will be taking place in the city this weekend, and it's pretty telling that while Boston city council members are demanding an increased police presence at some of the festivals, no one seems to be concerned about the possibility of "gun violence" at a rally of lawful gun owners. 

Citing concerns with violence and low staffing levels, a Boston city councilor formally requested that police department leadership enlist the help of outside law enforcement agencies to “ensure public safety” at this weekend’s festival and events.

City Councilor Ed Flynn made the request in a Tuesday email sent to Boston Police Commissioner Michael Cox and Superintendent Lanita Cullinane, citing the need for increased enforcement at the “many events” scheduled this weekend, including the Caribbean Carnival celebration — which was associated with a mass shooting last year.

“I am respectfully requesting for the Boston Police Department to formally request law enforcement assistance of neighboring cities and towns for this weekend with many events taking place across the city, including the Caribbean parade,” Flynn wrote in the email, which was obtained by the Herald.

Lawful gun owners aren't driving crime in Boston, Springfield, Worchester, or any other communities in Boston, though they're the primary focus of Chapter 35s new restrictions. Second Amendment supporters will be rallying not only to raise awareness of the inherent issues with the new law, but laying the groundwork for a massive grassroots signature-gathering effort to put a repeal of the "Lawful Citizens Imprisonment Act" on the ballot in 2026. 

Ahead of the rally, the Associated Press ran a piece highlighting the referendum effort, along with the first lawsuits to be filed challenging Chapter 35 in Court. While the AP did a decent job of balancing quotes from anti-gunners like Rep. Michael Day with 2A advocates like GOAL's Jim Wallace, the outlet also failed to inform its readers of the anti-2A viewpoints of one of the scholars they spoke to. 

Democratic state Rep. Michael Day, one architect of the legislation, said he’s confident it can withstand the legal challenges. He predicted voters would back the law if the choice is put on the 2026 ballot. 

“We’re trying to save lives,” he said. “One of the reasons people live in Massachusetts is that they can walk down the street without someone coming up on their side and menacing them.”

Cody Jacobs, a lecturer at Boston University School of Law, said the measures that deal with increased licensing requirements aren’t excessively burdensome, don't prevent gun ownership and don't infringe on Second Amendment rights. 

“Other training requirement for gun owners have been upheld by the courts,” he said. “I’d be pretty surprised if this would be overturned.”

Despite Day's asssertion, Massachusetts has a higher violent crime rate than neighboring Constitutional Carry states like Vermont and New Hampshire, and there are plenty of residents who are worried about their safety in one of the most gun-controlled states in the country. 

It would have been nice if the AP had provided some context to Day's defense of the new law, but it also would have been appropriate for the AP to have included this tidbit of information about Cody Jacobs found in his biography at Boston University: 

Prior to entering academia, Mr. Jacobs spent a year as a staff attorney at the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence in San Francisco. There, he tracked Second Amendment litigation, edited amicus briefs for Second Amendment cases, provided testimony for California lawmakers on firearms-related bills, and represented the organization in local and national media appearances.

Jacobs has taken issue with the Supreme Court's "common use" test, which holds that arms that are in common use for lawful purposes (including, but not limited to, self-defense) are prima facie protected by the Second Amendment. He's complained that "laws related to publicly carrying firearms have been dramatically loosened throughout the United States to the point that, in the vast majority of states, anyone who is legally allowed to carry a firearm is also eligible to legally carry a gun in public", while advocating that "most businesses should be subject to premises liability if they do not have an explicit and clearly communicated policy prohibiting customers from bringing guns into their stores when the failure to have such a policy causes a customer’s injury." In other words, if states can't or won't restrict the right to carry, there should be as many private property "gun-free zones" as possible. 

Given his stance, it's no surprise that Jacobs believes Chapter 35's training mandates (which have yet to be written, mind you) don't infringe on the Second Amendment. But the AP's readers have no idea that Jacobs has been a longtime advocate of more gun control laws unless they take it upon themselves to do some digging into his background. He's presented by the AP as a neutral observer when he's been an active participant in pushing for more restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. 

The lack of concern among Boston politicians over "gun violence" at a 2A rally is pretty telling, as is the AP's reluctance to educate its readers on the pro-gun control views of the academic poo-poohing gun owners' concerns. Those gun owners are just looking for a fair shake in the statehouse and the media, but instead they're subjected to a wave of infringements on their civil rights and a press that seems to be more interested in covering up the anti-2A ideology of Chapter 35s architects and defenders than covering the real problems in the new law.