Massachusetts Moves Step Closer to Confiscating Private Firearms

Massachusetts Legislature ^ | 11/26/05

[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.

[zbigreddogz]

Using that logic, we would have been two countries come around 1860 and black people wouldn't be voting in the South.

The lines are murkey, granted, and you shouldn't decide lightly, but you can't merely say all laws are absolute at all times. There are times where they become subordinate to other things.

[Tench_Coxe]

"Isn't this the same type of governmental intrusion that led to some problems in Massachusetts in 1775?"

Actually, very similar. General Gage had sent British troops to Lexington and Concord to confiscate cannon held by the colonists.
You know, Mass could really go for symbolism by publically confiscating firearms at Concord, just to show that tyranny wasn't defeated.

[jwalsh07]

I don't see where the 2nd amendment is carved out by the 14th

Thats because it's not, the second stands on it's own and incorporation by the 14th is neither necessary nor desirable.

"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."

Massachustees is infringing, not regualting. Good case for SCOTUS when Alito gets there.

[beltfed308]

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.




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.

[Chode]

yeah??? they'll risk more than their pension at some houses...

[freedumb2003]

Considering how much immigration laws are ignored, I would have to say that we are more towards the side of nothing.

OUch! I can't do anything about our leaders ignoring laws and I agree yours is a great example of what happens when we ignore them.

[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.

[RedMonqey]

"I have half-harted support for anarchy to be honest."

I kinda that logic.


Look at what the LA riots did for 2nd. Amend rights when the Koreans store owners banded together to protect their lives and livelihood.

[jwalsh07]

MASSACHUSETTS Declaration of Rights, Article 17

The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defense. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

[pleikumud]

Everyone who is eligible should buy a gun and learn how to use it. This would protect us against criminals, terrorists,and socialists (same as Democrats).

[rollo tomasi]

That is why I said "technically".

I agree with the "right of the people" unfortunately throughout the Supreme Court's history, the court does not agree with yours or mine assessment of the 2nd Amend.

[sit-rep]

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

[FreedomCalls]

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.

"Incorporation" only matters when the amendment says "Congress shall not" do something since it refers to Congress only -- unless "incorporated" via the 14th Amendment to mean state legislatures as well. 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.

[2nd amendment mama]

Ping!

[freedumb2003]

Using that logic, we would have been two countries come around 1860 and black people wouldn't be voting in the South.

No, the laws caught up with the needs of justice eventually. Or are you ready to let gays get married under the same premise as blacks not being able to vote?

[ImaTexan]

ping

[djf]

I would think the 14th amendment is not an issue here.

Connecticut, Georgia, and Massachusetts ratified the first ten amendments in 1939.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendments.html

[ThanhPhero]

If wyou all stopped paying taxes, the Massahusetts governament would gleefully expropriate all your property, bringing the Socialist Utopia one BIG step closer. Somehow, I don't think these things will be changed by any election in that state. It is the only state in the Union with a recognized and adored Royal Family, after all. The descenđants of the men of the Boston Tea Party have come to that.

[tioga]

Cold Dead Hands ping......what next?

[rollo tomasi]

I agree, but does the courts?

No, which is why State and local governments have been infrindging without remorse. Is it wrong to point out reality?