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.
Thanks for the ping. And the link. Finland has a proud history of resisting tyranical governments.
That is because the Supreme Court has incorporated the first Amend.
Yes. The cost, of course, will be the loss of around three to five per cent of the citizenry. That's of course a best-case scenario, assuming a short four-to-six month duration not likely to actually be the case.
At current U.S. population levels, that works out to around 15 million dead U.S, citizens.
I do not look forward to that prospect, but I would not be surprised to see it in my lifetime.
The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defense
But as you can see, it doesn't protect the right, only asserts it, and it's limited to "for the common defense", which is the "loophole" which the elephant of gun control is strained through. Handguns, not useful for the common defense, short shotguns and rifles, ditto (although all three are common military issue weapons) and no need to for people to actually bear arms unless the commonwealth is invaded, since that would then be for personal not common defense, never mind that two of the 9-11 aircraft took off from Boston's Logan airport.
But what can you expect from a state which elects, and continually reelects, The Swimmer and The Waffler to be their US Senators?
More likely the lower court will reject it, the appeals court will reject it, and the Supreme Court won't hear the case. It's happened before, many times.
In general the courts have used the "cases and controversies" doctrine to reject such injunctions anyway. Someone has to actually be harmed by the law, that is they have to violate it and be arrested and charged, before the courts will take up the matter. For some reason they don't do that for most first amendment cases seeking similar injunctions. You can get an injunction to halt enforcement of a law banning urinating on the American Flag, but many have tried and failed to get injunctions baring enforcement of laws infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
I like that story, but I do wish the reference to the National Guard were not in it. The closest thing to the National Guard would have been the Colonial Militia, very little of which (in Massachusetts at least) was loyalist. Smith and Gage were British Regulars, as where the troops that went on the confiscation/destruction mission to Lexington and Concord. Also along on the trek was Major Pitcairn, a Royal Marine officer. The follow up column, with that cannon, was led by Lord Percy, another British Regular.
Here's the story of the real incident, from a MA Army ROTC site.
Well, not the NRA per se, but it's Massachusetts state affillate, the Gun Owners Action League. Even in MA they couldn't get away with loading the panel that much.
And I would even take issue with that, as Adams, for all the good he did during the Revolution, turned around and signed the Alien and Sedition Acts - and enforced the Sedition Act - a complete affront to the First Amendment.
"Committee?" This should surely say "jury," and you can't do that anyway.
Probably not, but the Privileges and Immunities clause, ,and probably the due process claus as well, of that amendment apply and extend the second amendment's protection of the RKBA to actions by state governments. That was an explicit intent expressed by the authors of the 14th amendment.
Anarchy is not neccesarily a bad thing. Granted, if all law enforcement were to go on strike there would be a period wherein the bad guys would run rampant. After awhile though, the good guys would get fed up and stabilize things again.
Anti-gunners love to refer to "Dodge City" or "the wild west" as some sort of anarchistic 'boogy man,'but both were pretty tame compared to almost any major modern city. Yet there were no permanent police forces to keep order, only a sheriff or marshal who would deputize citizens when he needed them. Unlike today, ordinary citizens maintained order by stepping in and either stopping lawbreakers or by actually arresting them and transporting them to the sheriff's office.
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.