[beltfed308]

What a load of crap! What part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand. The frog boils slowly.

[rottndog]

Article [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.


Yep, it seems pretty cut and dried to me. Hasn't SCOTUS already ruled that you cannot require a license or fee for the exercise of a protected constitutional right?

[rollo tomasi]

Technically the 2nd Amend. has not been incorporated via the 14th Amend. which means local and State governments can put all kinds of restrictions on firearms.

Unless the Massachusetts Constitution has a "shall not be infringed" criteria in their document it citizens are at the mercy of the power whores who the electorate sent to represent the people of Massachusetts.

[Emmett McCarthy]

Well, the U.S. Constitution may not be perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than what we're living under now.

[sit-rep]

They don't care about constitution stuff in Massachusetts...they're to busy bending each other over in that state...

[El Gato]

Well Massachusetts has been sort of leery of individual firearms ownership from day one. Oh they have a second amendment like provision in their state constitution:

The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defense

But as you can see, it doesn't protect the right, only asserts it, and it's limited to "for the common defense", which is the "loophole" which the elephant of gun control is strained through. Handguns, not useful for the common defense, short shotguns and rifles, ditto (although all three are common military issue weapons) and no need to for people to actually bear arms unless the commonwealth is invaded, since that would then be for personal not common defense, never mind that two of the 9-11 aircraft took off from Boston's Logan airport.

But what can you expect from a state which elects, and continually reelects, The Swimmer and The Waffler to be their US Senators?