Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Massachusetts Moves Step Closer to Confiscating Private Firearms
Massachusetts Legislature ^ | 11/26/05

Posted on 11/26/2005 12:43:07 PM PST by pabianice

In November, the Massachusetts House of Representatives moved favorably from committee H. 2125, which brings the state one step closer to its goal of the confiscation of privately owned firearms.

Under this bill, all private owners of handguns would have to register each handgun with the police and have a separate $ 250,000 liability insurance policy on each handgun or have that handgun confiscated (insurance professionals: care to estimate the cost of such a policy to the holder?). Each such insurance policy must cover the potential theft and unlawful use of the gun. If the policy is inadequate to cover any subsequent court judgment against the lawful gunowner, he will be thrown in jail for five years for each offense. In cases where a finding of fact and guilt is to be made, one member of any such committee must be a member of Stop Handgun Violence, Inc.

There's more. Anyone who sells someone more than one gun a month shall be imprisoned for up to life. However, this law will not apply to anyone under the age of 18.

Most disgustingly, this bill is being crammed through the Legislature under Homeland Security measures.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: bang; banglist; bradybunch; commies; confiscation; cwii; freedom; gungrab; kennedystate; massachusetts; secondamendment; swimmersstate; taxachussetts; teddytheswimmer; waronsomeguns
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 201-215 next last
To: pabianice

"Under this bill, all private owners of handguns would have to register each handgun with the police and have a separate $ 250,000 liability insurance policy on each handgun or have that handgun confiscated"

Want to bet that police officers would be exempt from these requirements or that their dept woould pay for the insurance?


101 posted on 11/26/2005 3:53:53 PM PST by BadAndy (Note to Democrats: Benedict Arnold also called himself a patriot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Emile
At this point depending on the courts to protect our rights is an example of insanity as it has been classically defined.
102 posted on 11/26/2005 3:55:00 PM PST by kublia khan (Absolute war brings total victory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

The People Republic of Massachusettes.


103 posted on 11/26/2005 3:55:12 PM PST by Buffettfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls; rollo tomasi
Since the Second Amendment nowhere mentions "Congress" at all, the phrase "shall not be infringed" places a restriction on all levels of government subordinate to the Constitution.

Hague v. CIO, 307 US 496, 520:
"... the first eight amendments have uniformly been held not be protected from state action by the privileges and immunities clause" [of the fourteenth amendment]

-----------------------------------------

The problem is that the 14th Amendment created (for each and every one of us) an artificial *person*, or legal entity.

What the Founders referred to as a Citizen of the united States (or a State Citizen) was twisted to mean a citizen of the United States, or 'US citizen'.

______________________________________________________________________

"... a construction is to be avoided, if possible, that would render the law unconstitutional, or raise grave doubts thereabout. In view of these rules it is held that `citizen' means `citizen of the United States,' and not a person generally, nor citizen of a State ..."
U.S. Supreme Court in US v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542:

______________________________________________________________________

In 1887 the Supreme Court in Baldwin v. Franks 7 SCt 656, 662; 120 US 678, 690 found that:
"In the constitution and laws of the United States the word `citizen' is generally, if not always, used in a political sense ... It is so used in section 1 of article 14 of the amendments of the constitution ..."

______________________________________________________________________

The US Supreme Court in Logan v. US, 12 SCt 617, 626:
"In Baldwin v. Franks ... it was decided that the word `citizen' .... was used in its political sense, and not as synonymous with `resident', `inhabitant', or `person' ..."

104 posted on 11/26/2005 3:55:26 PM PST by MamaTexan (I am NOT a 'legal entity', nor am I a *person* as created by `law`!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

Oh come on, admit, it gets a little sticky.

Not even the most hardcore NRA member thinks an average citizen should be able to own...say...an anti-aircraft rocket launcher.


105 posted on 11/26/2005 3:56:04 PM PST by zbigreddogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: zbigreddogz
I'm not an NRA member so do I have to give up my RPG's and old Lars?????
106 posted on 11/26/2005 4:02:38 PM PST by kublia khan (Absolute war brings total victory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
robertpaulsen opines:

Then again, the Founders envisioned each state setting up their own rules.

Rules that complied with the 2nd, - no infringements.

If the majority of the people of Massachusetts don't want guns, as wrongheaded as that might be, who are we to deny them their wish?

'We' are people who demand that the law of the land, the 2nd Amendment, be supported by ALL officials, fed/state/local. -- As per their oaths of office.

The great thing about federalism is that there is another state to move to with more favorable laws.

Those who choose to ignore our Constitution are also free to leave the USA.

At least until some on this board get their wish and have the USSC tell us exactly what the second amendment means.

The USSC is only 'free' to tell other branches & levels of government to comply with our Constitution as written. - They are not free to change its meaning.

107 posted on 11/26/2005 4:06:01 PM PST by don asmussen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: kublia khan

Probably.


108 posted on 11/26/2005 4:10:16 PM PST by zbigreddogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
Work of course. Software is made in the Boston area. MIT is in the Boston area. It all ties back to Lincoln Labs. That is where the radar work was done in WW II by MIT engineers and it is still a critical tech nerve center.
109 posted on 11/26/2005 4:20:45 PM PST by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: zbigreddogz
Well... I hope their ready for them because this is gonna hurt and it definitely will leave a mark.
110 posted on 11/26/2005 4:32:01 PM PST by kublia khan (Absolute war brings total victory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: don asmussen
"'We' are people who demand that the law of the land, the 2nd Amendment, be supported by ALL officials, fed/state/local. -- As per their oaths of office."

The Supreme Court says otherwise:

"...The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called...internal police." -- U.S. v. Cruikshank

I don't agree but that's the way it is. The State can infringe on the rights of the people in regard to the 2nd Amendment.

Why? Because the Supreme Court said so.
111 posted on 11/26/2005 4:36:24 PM PST by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: ThanhPhero
The descendants of the men of the Boston Tea Party have come to that.

The descendants of the men of the Boston Tea Party moved West over the past two hundred years. They were the men of the wagon trains and the Wild West. They live in Ohio and Oregon and Arizona now.

The current inhabitants of Massachusetts are in large part the children or grandchildren of more recent immigrants from non-Anglo-Saxon countries, places where abject bovine submission to tyranny has a long and sordid history.

-ccm

112 posted on 11/26/2005 5:22:29 PM PST by ccmay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: zbigreddogz
Not even the most hardcore NRA member thinks an average citizen should be able to own...say...an anti-aircraft rocket launcher.

I knew a man in Switzerland who had an Oerlikon anti-aircraft gun in his back yard. About 10 feet long. Had a seat for the gunner, with hand cranks for azimuth and elevation, with firing controlled by a foot pedal. I think it shot 20mm cannon rounds.

The Swiss government sold it to him at surplus for 500 SFr.

I want one and think any honest citizen ought to be able to buy one.

-ccm

113 posted on 11/26/2005 5:26:10 PM PST by ccmay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi
'We' are people who demand that the law of the land, the 2nd Amendment, be supported by ALL officials, fed/state/local. -- As per their oaths of office.

The USSC is only 'free' to tell other branches & levels of government to comply with our Constitution as written. - They are not free to change its meaning.

The Supreme Court says otherwise:

The court 'says' a LOT of things. Their opinions are not always correct.

"...The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. -- "

No rights are "granted" by governments. Our rights are self evident, inalienable, & shall not be infringed.

Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.

"As has been seen"? Who 'saw' that? Nine justices?

This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called...internal police." -- U.S. v. Cruikshank

And we see the result of such misguided court decisions. State & local governments use democratic 'majority rule' to overturn the Constitutional rule of law.

I don't agree but that's the way it is. The State can infringe on the rights of the people in regard to the 2nd Amendment.
Why? Because the Supreme Court said so.

Why put blame on the USSC? -- Most agree because they want States to have the power to control other people and admit it. No disgrace to support majority rule.. Many here do..

114 posted on 11/26/2005 5:27:54 PM PST by don asmussen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi
means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.

WRONG! The other amendments say "Congress shall make no law..." The 2nd says "The right...SHALL NƠT BE INFRINGED." That makes it an absolute.It is not directed at Congress. Shall not be infringed means everybody.

115 posted on 11/26/2005 5:29:43 PM PST by arthurus (Better to fight them over THERE than over HERE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
Any FReeper, not from the cesspool of Massachusetts, would be glad to take firearms into safe holding should the enemies of American values and rights succeed in their attempts to tear up the Constitution.

Safekeeping for future use in defense of this nation from its enemies, foreign and domestic.

116 posted on 11/26/2005 5:32:06 PM PST by Thumper1960 ("There is no 'tolerance', there are only changing fashions in intolerance." - 'The Western Standard')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
PENNSYLVANIA Article I, Section 21.

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be questioned.

117 posted on 11/26/2005 5:36:46 PM PST by Thumper1960 ("There is no 'tolerance', there are only changing fashions in intolerance." - 'The Western Standard')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
"Under this bill, all private owners of handguns would have to register each handgun with the police and have a separate $ 250,000 liability insurance policy on each handgun or have that handgun confiscated"

I wonder if we can require all of the members of the Mass legislature to take out a $250,000 liability policy for every law they pass. That way it could be used to compensate the US taxpayers for the cost of the appeals that come from their stupid and unconstitutional laws. And if the cost of the appeals and litigation exceed $250,000 the members of the legislature could be thrown in jail for up to five years.
118 posted on 11/26/2005 5:56:20 PM PST by GonzoGOP (There are millions of paranoid people in the world and they are all out to get me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ccmay

Tell me, did he have to get a permit and go through a background check? I'm guessing he did.

I'm as hardcore pro 2nd Amendment as anyone, but do I want a kid who just turned 18, or an emotionally unbalanced man with a death wish, to be able to walk up to a car lot and buy a tank?

Hell no. That's rediculous. If you don't think that sort of thing would start straight up warfare in certain gang neighborhoods, I think you are naive.


119 posted on 11/26/2005 6:02:03 PM PST by zbigreddogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Massachusetts is making a cultural statement in the culture wars I suspect, because the proposed law has little or nothing to do with crime control, and may well be counterproductive, but I doubt SCOTUS will find there is an individual right to bear arms, if it comes before them. I suspect they will defer to the legislatures. The second amendment is just too ambiguous. When ambiguous, defer. I know your team tries to argue to the contrary, but from what I know, it is an uphill battle.

The good news is the Congress will not go there. Lott made a huge difference, in changing the terms of debate on gun control. It sucked the oxygen out of the "gun grabbers" on th issue. Ideas backed with data matter, they really do, in this case that an armed society really does seem to engender a polite society, based on the data. It changed my view. But Mass as I said wants to make a cultural statement. It gives meaning to the state of being of being a New England activist. It is in the genes of the place, which genes somehow managed to be passed on from the Puritan Calvinists to the Catholics. The Yankees in New England won, even while losing out demographically. Which reminds us, that it isn't all about demographics either.

120 posted on 11/26/2005 6:22:23 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 201-215 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson