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.

[wolfcreek]

Boston better beware, terrorists love an unarmed society.

[don asmussen]

Gotta love the Jefferson quote game, -- but nothing can be resolved by them unless you establish context.
Jefferson was above all a politician, very adept at writing what his correspondents wanted to hear.
Try again.

Huh. You hate him as much as you hate the republican principles he espoused.

Simply not true. I rate Jefferson as one of out greatest Americans, and view my politics as being Jeffersonian Republican.

[Torie]

And the two clauses of the Amendment are entirely consistent. The second clause guarantees a "right of the people," which is the right of each individual. The first clause explains that this right helps further a "well-regulated militia," a legal term of art that means "the body of the people capable of bearing arms" (here I quote from the New York Ratifying Convention's proposal that eventually became the Second Amendment 4) -- the entire armed citizenry, not some small National Guard-type unit.

The above in bold is an assertion, not an argument, it seems to me. What New York thought is of some slight interest, but hardly dispositive, and certainly not controlling.

[jwalsh07]

But this is dispositive:

"The current Militia Act, enacted in 1956 and derived from the original 1792 Militia Act, defines the "militia" as including all able-bodied male citizens from 17 to 45; 5 given the Court's sex equality jurisprudence, I feel comfortable saying that every able-bodied citizen from age 17 to 45, male or female, is a member of the militia. This is quite consistent with the second clause's securing an individual right to every person."

[Torie]

It would be interesting to read the actual text of the 1792 Act, and the context in which it was adopted, but even that act was adopted 3 years later than when the Bill of Rights were sent to the states for ratification. But without knowing more, that on its face seems substantial evidence indeed, if not necessarily dispositive. One issue, is what happens if the militia definition is changed by statute. Does that change who has a right to bear arms, or is the right conferred on those, never to be lost, who were deemed in the militia by a statute adopted 3 years after the 2nd amendment was sent to the states for ratification? I suppose that the best argument for latter if that if it were the former, the right could be gutted by a statute changing the definition of militia. And why was Congress defining militia, when it is a state run enterprise? What is that all about?

In any event, it is odd that one is deemed in the militia just be breathing and being of a certain age, without more. Very odd.

[Skywalk]

http://www.cronaca.com/archives/003038.html

"Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. ME 3:318

"The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society." --Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816.

[Mojave]

I rate Jefferson as one of out greatest Americans, and view my politics as being Jeffersonian Republican.

Not even close.

"Every man, and every body of men on earth, possesses the right of self-government. They receive it with their being from the hand of nature. Individuals exercise it by their single will; collections of men by that of their majority; for the law of the majority is the natural law of every society of men."
--Thomas Jefferson

[Mojave]

"Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression." --Thomas Jefferson

Good quote. Unsupportive of the dopers though.

[jwalsh07]

As a Happy Thanksgiving gift I give you this to contemplate:

The Militia Acts(plural) of 1792

Seems clear that the founders not only wanted but required every man of fighting age to be equipped with the basic issue of the infantryman. IOW's, I should be required to maintain my M16 and M60 in fighting trim. :-}

As an aside it kind of puts the kabosh on the argument that a draft is unconstitutional for any originalists, eh? :>}

[don asmussen]

Any one can play in the silly 'quote wars'..



Massachusetts Moves Step Closer to Confiscating Private Firearms

"A geographical division... is a most fatal of all divisions, as no authority will submit to be governed by a majority acting merely on a geographical principle." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel H. Smith, 1821.

"The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society." --Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816.


Thomas Jefferson Quotes
Address:http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/

[Mojave]

Good quotes. Irrelevant to your rant, but still good quotes.

[don asmussen]

"Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression." --Thomas Jefferson

Mojave wrote:
¸Good quote.
Unsupportive of the dopers though.

Supports the fact that: - Massachusetts Moves Step Closer to [unconstitutionally] Confiscating Private Firearms, - though.

[don asmussen]

What "rant"?

[Dustbunny]

What else can you expect from Liberals. Taking away your right to protect yourself is a first step toward Marxism/Communism.

[GOP_1900AD]

Gunsarebad ..... NOT!!!!

[jmc813]

By taking that arguement to its logical end (i.e. no weapons whatsoever are restricted), and having you agree that in that case, it wouldn't be, I have proven that it isn't absolute.

There is a difference between arms and weapons. To favor any restrictions on arms makes you a gun-grabber.

[archy]

What do you call Boston Harbor, choked with the dead, rotting, and fetid corpses of anti-gun, anti-religion, pro-tax statists?

Are you familiar with the number of casualties resulting from the 6-month-long Finnish Civil War of 1918, when the Communists unsuccessfully attempted to wrest control of that country?

It was arguably the conflictmost analagous to a second American civil war or war of constitutional defence; not so much in numbers, but in percentages.

And I suspect you're going to need a larger harbour. MUCH larger.... Accordingly, CWII Ping!

[johnny7]

Many MA Police chiefs would prefer to have law-abiding citizens disarmed... as it stands now, it's up to them whether you get a pistol permit... or not.

[dljordan]

"Think about it, if we all stopped paying taxes, the government would have to find other means of revenue."

That's why the parasites have payroll deduction. You'd have to stop working (if you're not self-employed) to keep them from getting your money.

[mysterio]

Libertarians have been saying all along that they would eventually use the "homeland security" government power grab to go after guns.