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.
Geez, just move out of that 'rathole state and come to Texas.
< / total disgust >
Just did that :-)
Obviously, if you actually care to think about this issue instead of react insultingly, I am arguing just the opposite.
It is clear that I was arguing that Lincoln needed to put down the south at all cost, that the law had failed him because it had a built in paradox where on one hand, what he did was technically illegal, but since the laws were based in large part on individual rights, which were not being granted, they had nothing to stand on.
The main argument that Gay Marriage proponents use is that Blacks couldn't vote or marry and their (the gay side) issue is the very same thing.
All grow out of a feeling of "invalid laws" like the fabled Militia in montana or Texas Republic.
You seem incapable of making any sort of judgement beyond the law. All claims that laws are invalid are not equal. But that doesn't mean that none of them are valid.
George Washington broke every law in the books. He's the father of our country. Unless you are going to argue that America is immorally and illigitimately founded, its impossible to logically argue that all laws are absolute at all times. They aren't, and the Declaration of Independance says so.
CFR was sticky. It's clear that the government can regulate commerce to some degree, including commercial speech. The debate essentially came down to commercial speech vs. political speech, and the SC scrwed up. At least that's my understanding of it.
Guns can be stiky, but not that sticky. I'd bet the rent on it.
They don't.
Part I, Article XVII of A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:
"The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. 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 power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it."
In Commonwealth v. Davis, 343 N.E. 2d 847, 849 (1976), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has held that the above does not guarantee individual ownership or possession of weapons. The supreme court reasoned that the right to “bear arms” contained in Pt. 1, Art. XVII concerned the custom of keeping arms for use in militia service and was “not directed to guaranteeing individual ownership or possession of weapons.”
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.
MOLONE LABE
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.
Then the people of Massachusetts are screwed.
It's not like the electorate are tied down anyways. The fools continue to elect politicians who think the ideas of liberty and freedom are forbidden (Unless it concerns the "freedom" that gives women the right to murder the unborn).
Anyone who sells someone more than one gun a month shall be imprisoned for up to
Don't worry, I'm sure the president will get right on this.
This is more than gun control, but attack of gun owners and their families and traditions/cultivation/education in political persecution. Mao's cultural revolution comes to mind.
When Massachussets gets run over by islamo-fascisto-communisto pervert genocidal monsters, we'll let them simmer in their own lawyer juices.
No, the laws caught up with the needs of justice eventually
Yep, they are.
Then again, the Founders envisioned each state setting up their own rules. 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?
The great thing about federalism is that there is another state to move to with more favorable laws. At least until some on this board get their wish and have the USSC tell us exactly what the second amendment means.
All NRA members need to join Stop Handgun Violence, Inc. ASAP!
Not a bad idea.
When guns are outlawed in the state where I reside I shall surely be a criminal....again....or still.
"Meanwhile here in the people's republic, there are laws on the books threatening life in prison for possessing a pair of num-chucks. I swear I am not making this up."
Why do you live there? For Heavens sake, move to Freedom or you'll be fighting for it too soon for many.
If a gun is sticky then it needs cleaning. I'd give the ammo a wipedown too.
I still say the last good man to reside in Mass. was John Adams.
I'd rather see the harbor full of the islamo-fascisto-communisto pervert genocidal monsters floating in the harbor than simmering in the legislative halls.
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.