Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Rules 2nd Amendment Does Not Apply to States

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Rules 2nd Amendment Does Not Apply to States

www.blacklistednews.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.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court unanimously dismissed two challenges to the state’s gun laws that require citizens to register with police departments before acquiring a firearm, as well as keeping guns stored in a locked container or equipped with a trigger lock.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.southcoasttoday.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
UN is Coming for your Guns

Wow this looks pretty serious..a Supreme Court ruling is no joke. 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. Will this start spreading to other states as well? Can't say st the moment...but surely something to watch out for.

www.blacklistednews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Its the Massachusetts Supreme Court, not the US Supreme Court. If this case goes to the USSC, I can't imagine any way possible that it'll stand. The Bill of Rights in the US Constitution applies to everyone in the country. This would be like saying that you have no freedom of speech in a particular state if that state's constitution does not explicitly protect it. Of course, we all know that's bull crap, just as it is in this case.

Its just another case of idiot activist judges making it up as they go.

Sadly, the MA Supreme Court has just over-stepped it's bounds! The first Ten Ammendments to the Constitution, better known as the Bill of Rights apply universally to EVERYONE and are the ONLY power enumerated specifically to the Federal Government. All OTHER powers not described in those 10 Ammendments are reserved specifically for the states. Ergo, the right to bear arms applies UNIVERSALLY across the whole of the States United, without exception. The SCOTUS has already set precedent on the matter and will see to this ruling overturned.

Originally posted by December_Rain
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. Will this start spreading to other states as well?

Forgive my ignorance on this subject but, this "states?" business.
The bill of amendmants doesnt apply to all the US??

Its the "does not apply to the states" bit i dont understand.
Whats the difference between Mass. and the rest.?
Enlighten me someone please.

Guess it's a good thing I live in the "Commonwealth of Pennsylvania" then. LOL Damn, the crazy stuff they come up with to spend money on in the Courts these days are absolutely crazy.

Just another way to waste taxpayers' money on frivolous stuff.

A_L

OK, I'm not American, so I find your "Right to bear arms" thing a little redundant (forgive my ignorance), butthese rules for ownership of a gun seem pretty sensible to me. Register the gun and keep it in a safe place where no-one can (a) steal it, and (b) no kid can get hold of it and accidentally shoot themselves.

It's not like anyone is saying they can't have a gun, just to take precautions and take responsibility for it if you do own one.

Next it'll be the 1st, then the 4th etc. If one doesn't apply then the rest can surely be thrown out also?

State courts get to make interpretations of law, nothing more.

If the Massachusetts Supreme Court (their state's ultimate court of appeals) whishes to validate their political take on gun-crontrol, they should not be pointing to the Constitution which directly contradicts them.

It is appalling how casually the Judiciary seems to take for granted that they RULE.

They are trying (desperately) to interpret a consitutional clause which clearly states exactly what it means..., and the media will help them.

Politics in law.... activism in the judiciary, decaying Juris Prudence, and a corrupt BAR.... this naton's decline is unchecked by those who are supposed to be dedicated to it's welfare. Pathetic.



[edit on 15-3-2010 by Maxmars]

I find it appalling that the Supreme Court of a state in our union has enough seated jurists that obviously do not understand US Constitutional law to pass a ruling like this.

reply to post by nik1halo


The states do have some right to issue regulations. The USSC declared this be so in Heller vs DC back in 2008, but did not clearly lay out just how far they could go.

The problem here is that the Massachusetts state Supreme Court seems to believe that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to them, period, when obviously it does. The Bill of Rights was designed as a national level protection of rights for all citizens of the country. In fact, the stupidity of their argument in this case is that the existence of the 10th amendment should make this abundantly clear.

This is nothing more than grandstanding to try to undermine the SCOTUS in the McDonald VS Chicago where the case is about if the 14th amendment is valid in this firearms issue and whether the 10th amendment should be interpreted as most here understand it! From all Amicus Curia briefs I have read in the last week and the arguments presented last week it may be that they will again use a very narrow interpretation and leave us with ambiguous laws intact. They seem to work hardest to keep us on a fine edge between a criminal and a citizen and do it with impunity!

Zindo

reply to post by Maxmars


Your right Maxmars. In a way, this looks like smoke and mirrors to me. Get everybody all POed over this judgement. Not everyone is this stupid. Like people can`t read the Bill of Rights and understand them? Is this nothing more then a way of gettings everyones attention away from something else that is going on? That ruling will never fly if it`s contested in the end. So why even try? I think something else is going on here.

The 2nd applies to all states that are part of the USA. It was based more or less on the Pennsylvania doctrine at the time it was written. I would imagine that in this case the Mass. courts did not wish to let such an issue be decided by them so they gave this case what is sure to be a bump up to the US Courts.

Sad, terrible, and pathetic, It is disgusting to think that this jerk wants to use our bill of rights as TP. Its stupid crap like this that leaves the Us versus Them attitude and it is absolutley crap there is no need for this. I understand you cant make everyone happy and all but why. Why demonize guns we all know that the bad guys will always have them legally or illegally, in this particular instance this guy's gun is a gavel and he is using it against the people that have supposed rights that are unalienable by god himself (but then again this is the court that thought burning witches was cool possibly for fun and profit jk) Idk about this I think it has wooden legs

reply to post by nik1halo


This is why you are a subject and not a citizen. To allow the state to have control of the only asset to a citizen that could overthrow a tyrannical government is to cede all checks and balances of power to the government itself. To give over control of your individual choice to arm and organize to a corrupt government bureaucrat is a disease Western Europe, Austrailia and some northern US states seem to be infected with. As you are quite aware, a government can pass and enforce anything on an unarmed people with no fear of organised revolt. Hence America saw the need for an armed citizenry apart from the Federal Army to ensure any chance of a dictatorship would be thwarted by the people. Muskets work far better than pitchforks against imposing armies, without or within.

Massachusetts is basically a socialist entity that few of the other states relate to. Let the communist states vote themselves into unarmed serfdom. Its worked well for their comrades in other communist states. They just might want to know that Trotsky, Obama and Lenin are neat and all on the college campus, but leave little to smile about once relegated to the collective farms. We in the rest of the states will ignore any attempt to infringe and confiscate arms with extreme prejudice and I know my state will have no problem reverting to our past nations' flag circa 1864.