How Many Reading and North Reading Residents Have Gun Permits?

President Barack Obama's proposals for new gun control measures have everyone talking. But do you know how many of your neighbors might be armed?

In the wake of the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary, President Barack Obama has made several new proposals for increased gun control.

That got us thinking. How many Reading and North Reading residents have a gun license?

The answer: 706 in Reading and 960 in North Reading, if you're talking about the most common type of gun license. In bureaucratic-speak, that's the "Resident Class A Large Capacity License to Carry Firearms." According to the Globe, it's the only Massachusetts license that lets individuals carry a concealed weapon and own any type of legal gun.

To put that 706 person figure in context, Reading's population is 24,747 according to the 2010 Census, and North Reading has 960 gun permits with a population of 14,892 according to the 2010 Census. 

Both towns have seen an increase in permits since 2008, but not a large one. In 2008, the number of people with a gun license in Reading was 598, and 766 in North Reading.

Here is a chart of active "Class A" gun license holders in Reading and North Reading since 2008, according to the State Office of Public Safety.

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Class A Licenses Reading 598 648 675 694 706 Class A Licenses North Reading 766 837 886 914 960

And here's something you might not know: There are four people in Reading licensed to own a machine gun and three people in North Reading. That number has remained pretty steady since 2008, give or take one permit.

If you are interested in getting a gun permit, you must make an appointment with Reading or North Reading Police.

CommonSenseCitizen January 19, 2013 at 05:23 PM
Yeah, I'm definitely not wasting my time in this thread any longer. I had no idea you were one of these "OMG communism sohshullist" types. Ugh. You're never going to understand the points other people are going to make. You're just upset there's a democrat in office. I bet you cried on election night. For goodness sakes. I'm out.
Janine Largent January 20, 2013 at 02:57 AM
Commonsense, And you, my friend are not gracious, nor a very good debater.
Michael L January 22, 2013 at 01:57 PM
Let's get these newspapers to print HOW many politicans and anti-gunners are benefiting by the anti-gun craze. As an example Bushmaster is 6% owned by the California teacher's union. How is that for hypocrasy? In addition Mr. Canney. What differnece does it make how many rounds are legal? 1- It is just as easy to rleoad another 7 round magazine and keep shooting. The Sandy school killer was reloading after a few shots as he learned in games like DOOM etc. The issue is that if someone is intent on causing massive carnage he will find a way regardless of the numbe ror type of gun he uses. PS: The largest school massacre occcured in the 1920s by a janitor who used bombs. Timothy McVeigh used fertilizer. 2- There have been numerous attempts at school shooting prevented by Armed guards.....the media does not publish that. How many school shooting have been caused by the armed guards or the teachers that carry weapons? NOT ONE. 3- And what does having to transfer a gun at a dealer at a cost of 40++ have to do with safety? We have laws in place now that work why make us pay for new law that will not do anything to prevent crime? I just hope that all the anti-gunners never have to face a situation tto save their family and not be able to as I have. I am a legal gun owner and observe all laws but I am the one the govternment is after versus the criminals who are let off with a slap on the wrist for their crimes.
Janine Largent January 22, 2013 at 05:56 PM
Michael, I the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy the appropriate response should be grief. Sadly, as so often occurs in situations like this the human need to grieve turns to anger and a call for action. The call for action comes from concerned citizens; parents with young children in schools who want some guarantee of safety for their children and sadly, often times, from politicians who seek to gain political ground or advance their agenda. I have a child in the public schools. I realize that I cannot ever receive a guarantee of her safety. Even if the second amendment were repealed and every gun confiscated an individual intent upon creating such carnage would find a way to succeed. Massacres such as Sandy Hook or Columbine or Aurora are emblematic of a more serious social problem. To find the solution we must take a good, long look at ourselves. We also have to seriously try to profile the type of person who commits these acts in order to truly get at the cause and eventually the solution. Any conversation of gun control should naturally lead to a discussion of the second amendment. Conversations that tell gun owners to somehow convince society through statistics that the the majority of gun owners are law abiding, etc. etc. become convoluted and render gun ownership to the level of a privilege. We are a republic. As such, we are ruled by law. The constitution is the basis for that law. Any conversation on gun control should be lead by the law.
JJ Mclure November 27, 2013 at 03:47 PM
guns only shoot bullets....people kill people


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »