Massachusetts SJC rules 2nd Amendment does not apply to states, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 11 times
Topic started on 13-3-2010 @ 01:10 PM by Tinman67

Massachusetts SJC rules 2nd Amendment does not apply to states


www.southcoasttoday.com
The right to bear arms as defined in the Second Amendment does not apply to the states, so Massachusetts can regulate who can have firearms and how those weapons are to be stored, the state's high court ruled Wednesday.
(visit the link for the full news article)


reply posted on 13-3-2010 @ 01:25 PM by JayinAR
Wow, the courts are on a roll lately.
I don't see this going over too well.


reply posted on 13-3-2010 @ 01:31 PM by Tinman67
reply to post by JayinAR


People will just roll over and take it. Our Constitution is no longer slowly being eroded as it was through the twentieth century, but is now being fully and heavily assaulted from within.
Just take a stroll through todays recent posts and count the number of acts of treason being conducted by elected and non elected persons in all three branches of the federal govt and the same in the state govt's.


reply posted on 13-3-2010 @ 01:33 PM by endisnighe
reply to post by Tinman67


Okay, we need a lawyer here to try and obfuscate this simple tenet.

No legislation or decree of court, can overrule a component of the Constitution.

Now, the US Constitution is the Law of the Land. No state can overrule any tenet of the US Constitution.

If I am wrong, please give me the reasoning behind your stance.

Now, if I was in Massachusetts, I would be open carrying to get busted.

Jury nullification people. Do not let them intimidate you. Request a speedy trial for any offense, even traffic court.

Lets bury them in their own idiocy. Your honor, I would like an immediate jury trial for that jaywalking. I would like it within the next two weeks. I do not wave my rights to a speedy trial. Sorry, no!

Frelling retards. Anyone here going to admit they are from Massachusetts now? You did good on your last vote, now you have some more work to do.


Here is the idiot DA's reasoning,from the article-


"We have seen in Bristol County, and I believe this is true throughout Massachusetts, that 95 percent of the gun violence is committed by those who have no lawful right to possess or carry a firearm," Bristol County District Attorney C. Samuel Sutter said.


So the best way to deal with gun violence by criminals, you keep the guns from citizens?

Oh, and by the way, here is a perfect analogy of what they are saying.

95% of all bear attacks, are done by bears, so we are going to outlaw lions.

But, also from the article-

The issue could be revisited soon. Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in McDonald v. Chicago, a case in which the court is asked to determine whether the Second Amendment applies to state and local laws.

"The Chicago case will be a remarkable decision," Teachman said. "It will have a profound effect either way."

Attorney Dwight Duncan, a professor at the new UMass School of Law at Dartmouth, said the Supreme Judicial Court may be on "very thin ice" in its gun rulings.

"Given that virtually every provision of the Bill of Rights has been incorporated against the states by the 14th Amendment's due process clause, I think it highly unlikely that the U.S. Supreme Court will decide that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states," Duncan said.


[edit on 3/13/2010 by endisnighe]


reply posted on 13-3-2010 @ 01:44 PM by Tinman67
reply to post by endisnighe


Very well stated. I am just so, frustrated (trying real hard to watch my mouth). You see it, I see it, what is so hard to see. Our rights, as spelled out in the U.S. Constitution, are not granted to us by the Federal, State or Local govt., the USSC does not grant them to us nor does the Executive or Legislative branches.
Our rights are the rights of humankind. Untouchable by any politician, lawyer or judge. What the Mass SC did here is an act of Treason. The need to be arrested and hauled before grand jury.


reply posted on 13-3-2010 @ 01:44 PM by JayinAR
reply to post by Tinman67


I would like to think that they wouldn't just roll over and take it. But nothing surprises me anymore.



reply posted on 13-3-2010 @ 02:14 PM by Alien Mind
reply to post by JayinAR


I know Tennesse has allowed more gun rights in the state, they passed a law allowing people to carry a gun into places of business as long as the business says its ok


reply posted on 13-3-2010 @ 02:17 PM by Tinman67
reply to post by Alien Mind


It has been kicked around that citizens should be able to carry, open or concealed (if licensed) into any place that does not offer security for them.


reply posted on 13-3-2010 @ 02:33 PM by Tinman67
reply to post by Aggie Man


Yeah, I guess you're right. Kinda like they, the US Supreme Court, would never go along with a nutty idea like, say, corporations have the same rights as you or I.


reply posted on 13-3-2010 @ 02:46 PM by Ahabstar
This judge should be disbarred for not knowing the most basic of legal documents.


Article VI

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.


Okay, Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land. All judges, (not select ones that make rules on what they want the law to mean) are bound to follow the law as established by the Constitution, even when State and local laws disagree (thus unconstitutional laws).


Article IV, Section 2.

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.


If several states were to pass a law allowing their citizens to execute any and all government officials, whether elected or appointed, for any reason provided that three people agree that it is the proper thing to do; then this sorry excuse for a judge could be executed legally no matter how many laws and court ruling in Massachusetts say otherwise. Provided that three people agree of course, which should not be much of a problem.

All those states that have indoor smoking bans statewide: unconstitutional on the grounds that business owner in several different states have the privilege to decide if their establishment shall be smoking or non-smoking. So Ohio, georgia, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota stick that in your pipe and light up.


Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


Yeah, it is a two-fer...wait for it....


Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


The 9th and 10th both mention the rights of the people and that nothing can be used, manipulated, mistaken opinion, incorrect (unconstitutional) ruling, force manipulation of the dice while gambling for the freedom of a slave on Tatooine...NOTHING can interfere with rights that are retained by the people. Nada, zip, zilch.

The 2nd (we can speculate that founding fathers knew the trapping of power, that once obtained must grow in scope) very specifically added "shall not be infringed". It is unfortunate that two enemies (foreign and domestic) were not spelled out so the average three year old (and gov't official) can understand. So allow me the latitude to define them. Both foreign and domestic enemies are governments and organized groups that would work to remove the rights guaranteed and protected by the Constitution.

The 2nd exists so the people can safeguard their freedoms and rights from those that would choose to remove them by force of arms if need be, from all enemies both foreign and domestic. And that is about as close as we get to a law that says three people agreeing can execute a pathetic judge if he refuses to step down.



[edit on 13-3-2010 by Ahabstar]


reply posted on 13-3-2010 @ 02:47 PM by Aggie Man
Originally posted by Tinman67
reply to post by Aggie Man


Yeah, I guess you're right. Kinda like they, the US Supreme Court, would never go along with a nutty idea like, say, corporations have the same rights as you or I.


Yes, I know...corporations should not have the same rights as you or I; however, based upon the wording of the constitution, the SCOTUS did interpret it correctly. What we need in this scenario is an amendment to the constitution to close that "loop hole".



reply posted on 13-3-2010 @ 02:51 PM by ProtoplasmicTraveler
The Massachusetts Bay Company is actually the parent corporation of the United States, Inc.

There are a lot of well kept and little discussed secrets regarding the nation’s founding and its purpose.

Though it is sad to think and realize the United States Constitution is more akin to a sales brochure used to entice generations of disaffected people from their homelands to the U.S. to both populate the nation and to create a safety valve for Europe’s regimes much the way Miami functions today in taking in all those opposed to Castro in Cuba.

Since the Massachusetts Bay Company far predates the United States Inc and the United States Inc has been in Bankruptcy since 1933 in reality yes, they don’t need to uphold or adhere to the Constitution which has been a largely unused form of law since the Civil War in 1861 anyway.

It is what it is!

People should learn about the American Corporate State as the best means to squarely and effectively deal with it.

Let’s review!

On June 12, 1630, the flagship of the Massachusetts Bay Company arrived in Salem to officially found the new colony. The company was founded by English Puritans, most of whom were educated and wealthy. A fleet of eleven ships brought hundreds of settlers to Salem. John Winthrop became the first governor of the colony.


Charter Issued, by James I, who despised the Puritans and increased the persecution of them. The Puritans asked John Winthrop, a wealthy lawyer, to negotiate on their behalf to establish a new settlement in the new world. James agreed to provide the Puritans with a charter to start a new colony- it was to be called the Massachusetts Bay Company. John Winthrop was appointed as the first governor of the colony to be. Bio of John Winthrop

Boston Founded, by over 1,000 colonists in 17 ships departed for the new world, in the largest migration of the century. In 1630 the colonist arrived at Massachusetts Bay. They were well equipped and founded the city of Boston. Winthrop, the first governor wrote: "For we must consider that we shall be like a City upon Hill; the eyes of all people are on us."


Governing the Colony. The company tied its fate to that of the colony and soon moved its headquarters from England to Boston. By the early 1840s 16,000s people lived in Boston and the surrounding area. The Puritans transformed their churches so that each church would choose its own minister. They also transformed the Massachusetts Bay Company from a chartered company into a self-governing commonwealth. A general court became the highest authority in the new colony. All adult freeman (not indentured servants) who were church members became part of the General Court. They elected the governor



HistoryCentral.com

See there was nothing untoward involved at all!




reply posted on 13-3-2010 @ 02:55 PM by verylowfrequency
We have a similar situation in Washington state where the city of Seattle implemented a gun ban in parks. While the state courts ruled the gun ban was illegal, the feds have sided with the City at this point.

Seattle Times "Can city ban guns in parks?"

On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman ruled Under current case law, the Second Amendment constrains the actions of Congress, not cities and states.


So according to this federal judge, the Second Amendment does not keep cities & states from banning guns.

[edit on 13-3-2010 by verylowfrequency]


reply posted on 13-3-2010 @ 04:32 PM by vor78
reply to post by Aggie Man


Agreed. There's absolutely no way that this would ever hold up if it goes to the US Supreme Court. The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights apply to everyone in every state.

Stupid activist judges.
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



Russian scientists reach buried Antarctic Lake Vostok
  Posted 3 days ago with 83 member flags
Monsanto quits as GM results announced (EUROPE)
  Posted 5 days ago with 72 member flags
Strange noises reported around North Battleford
  Posted 16 days ago with 67 member flags
Ayatollah: Kill all Jews, annihilate Israel
  Posted 4 days ago with 49 member flags

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Santorum wants more fracking!!!
  US Political Madness, Posted 13 hours ago, 53 replies
Pass Me My Rifle
  World War Three, Posted 9 hours ago, 52 replies