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 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-215 next last
To: freedumb2003

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.


41 posted on 11/26/2005 1:26:54 PM PST by zbigreddogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: 04-Bravo
"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.

42 posted on 11/26/2005 1:26:59 PM PST by Tench_Coxe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rottndog
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.

43 posted on 11/26/2005 1:27:22 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Monitor

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.


44 posted on 11/26/2005 1:27:51 PM PST by beltfed308 (Cloth or link. Happiness is a perfect trunnion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Mrs Mark
Image hosted by Photobucket.comyeah??? they'll risk more than their pension at some houses...
45 posted on 11/26/2005 1:28:54 PM PST by Chode (American Hedonist ©®)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: rottndog
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.

46 posted on 11/26/2005 1:29:09 PM PST by freedumb2003 (Let's tear down the observatory so we never get hit by a meteor again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: beltfed308

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.


47 posted on 11/26/2005 1:29:28 PM PST by Emmett McCarthy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: William Creel
"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.
48 posted on 11/26/2005 1:29:44 PM PST by RedMonqey (Life is hard. It's even harder when you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
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.

49 posted on 11/26/2005 1:30:40 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

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).


50 posted on 11/26/2005 1:31:01 PM PST by pleikumud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
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.
51 posted on 11/26/2005 1:31:53 PM PST by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: beltfed308
They don't care about constitution stuff in Massachusetts...they're to busy bending each other over in that state...
52 posted on 11/26/2005 1:32:04 PM PST by sit-rep (If you acquire, hit it again to verify...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 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.

"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.

53 posted on 11/26/2005 1:32:57 PM PST by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: basil; dbwz; spitter; songbird51

Ping!


54 posted on 11/26/2005 1:34:19 PM PST by 2nd amendment mama ( www.2asisters.org • Self defense is a basic human right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zbigreddogz
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?

55 posted on 11/26/2005 1:34:24 PM PST by freedumb2003 (Let's tear down the observatory so we never get hit by a meteor again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: bjcintennessee

ping


56 posted on 11/26/2005 1:35:41 PM PST by ImaTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls

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


57 posted on 11/26/2005 1:41:44 PM PST by djf (Government wants the same things I do - MY guns, MY property, MY freedoms!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: William Creel
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.
58 posted on 11/26/2005 1:42:01 PM PST by ThanhPhero (di hanh huong den La Vang)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Gabz; Texan5; RikaStrom

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


59 posted on 11/26/2005 1:43:33 PM PST by tioga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls
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?
60 posted on 11/26/2005 1:43:55 PM PST by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 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