Commonwealth v. Truth, who would you bet on?

PATRON

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 99.2%
129   1   1
Joined
Sep 11, 2007
Messages
6,167
Likes
5,924
Well said,now are you some kind of nut? You know they will be dragging your ass to jail while your reading that.
 

Dr. Kang Lu

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 30, 2020
Messages
62
Likes
267
Location
New England
Well said,now are you some kind of nut? You know they will be dragging your ass to jail while your reading that.
There are two kinds of nuts — those who are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable,
and those who see it as their right and duty to throw off such Despotism when the Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Tyranny. Call me crazy all you want, I’ve picked my crazy, and so have you!
 

Dr. Kang Lu

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 30, 2020
Messages
62
Likes
267
Location
New England
Was perplexed by his definition that "carry" does not mean "have on one's person".
The word "carry" is a specifically employed "legal term of art." In other words, it's LEGALESE and does NOT mean the common "have on one's person" meaning ordinarily used in conversational English. (It's intent is to manufacture your consent, to give up your right to bear arms, in exchange for a licensed commercial activity of carrying firearms for hire. Firearms is another such dishonest legal term of art.)

The meaning of "carry" must be determined from its use in the Constitution and in the statutes, as determined by the following interpretive rules:

1. The legislature "...cannot invoke the sovereignty of the people to override their will as declared in the Constitution." Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330 (1935). (So "carry" can not be the same as "bear.")

2. The legislature "...cannot [redefine the words used in the Constitution], since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate." Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920). (So "carry" is not explicitly defined by the legislature!)

3. Since "The Constitution is a written instrument ... its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now."

4. Words used in the constitution "...must be read with the ... significance of the experience to which they were addressed -- a significance not to be found in the dictionary;" United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56 (1950), therefore, the search for the meaning of words must begin with the constitution.

Here is how "carry" is used in the Constitution, both U.S. and Mass.:

Massachusetts Constitution, Articles of Amendment, Article XLVI, Section 2 (amended by Article CIII): "All moneys raised by taxation ..., and to carry out legal obligations...;" Article XLVIII, II., Section 2: "... the general court ... shall appropriate such money ... to carry such law into effect;" Article LXXXIII: "public offices ... carrying on the powers and duties of such offices..." and NOTE: "A Resolve providing for carrying the new Constitution into effect was passed..." and "... the General Court passed a law to ascertain and carry out the will of the people ..." The United States Constitution, Article. I., Section. 8., Clause 18: "Congress shall have Power To ... make all Laws ... for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers..."

Here is how "carry" is used in the Mass. General Laws:

"When the meaning of a statute is brought into question, a court properly should read other sections and should construe them together;" Commonwealth v. Robert Murphy, 409 Mass. 665 (1991), "...our rule of construction [is] that words in a statute must be considered in light of the other words surrounding them." Commonwealth v. Brooks, 366 Mass. 423 (1974); as "Undoubtedly, there is a natural presumption that identical words used in different parts of the same act are intended to have the same meaning." Atlantic Cleaners & Dyers, Inc. v. United States, 286 U.S. 427 (1932):

MGL 64F § 2 requires a license for "motor carriers" to carry;
MGL 159B § 4 requires a permit for "contract carriers" to carry;
MGL 159B § 8 requires a certificate for "common carriers" to carry;
MGL 159B § 10 requires registration of "interstate carriers" to carry;
MGL 159B § 15A requires a permit for "agricultural carriers" to carry;
MGL 140 § 131 "A license shall entitle a holder thereof to carry firearms..."
MGL 266 § 38 states carriers are "in the business of transporting...property for hire;"
MGL 161A § 47 authorizes bus carriers "for the carrying of passengers for hire;"
MGL 90 § 51M (2017) grants public and private carriers "license...for the transportation of persons for hire;"
MGL 159 § 12 regulates common carriers in the "carriage of passengers for hire;"
MGL 161 § 52 states carriers of mail are companies that carry the mail for hire;
MGL 90 § 49O (2017) states public air carriers are "engaged...in...air transportation for hire;"
MGL 41 § 98 authorizes police officers the "powers and duties" to "carry" weapons;
MGL 147 § 8A provides sheriffs, his deputies, and any similar officer may carry weapons in the performance of their duties;
MGL 140 § 131P exempts any [officer, agent or employee, member of the military or other service who] is authorized ... to carry or possess [a] weapon [when] acting within the scope of his duties to be exempt from the basic firearms safety certificate;
MGL 147 § 29A requires any watch, guard or patrol agency to maintain daily records of guards and other employees carrying guns in the performance of their duties; where watchmen, guards, private patrolmen or other persons, described in MGL 147 § 22 are those who, "for hire or reward, ... protect persons or property;" and finally, while MGL 147 § 21A provides that "A police cadet shall ... not carry arms." (Notably, § 21A does not prohibit cadets from "bearing arms.")

Finally, "...the law is the definition and limitation of power." Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886) and "Thus far, we have not traveled, in our search for the meaning of the lawmakers, beyond the borders of the statute." United States v. Great Northern Railway Co., 287 U.S. 144 (1932). In other words, if the law doesn't describe "carry" to mean the ordinary to "have on one's person," then it must not be presumed to mean so, and it's meaning is confined to the context in which it is used in the published law.

The price of Liberty is your diligent reading of what our politicians are proposing in our laws, the vigilance to ensure that they do not exceed the powers we delegate to them, and the courage to make them accountable to us at all times. Massachusetts Constitution, Part the First, See Article V.

Afterall, politicians are our substitutes and agents...
 

42!

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
9,347
Likes
8,027
The word "carry" is a specifically employed "legal term of art." In other words, it's LEGALESE and does NOT mean the common "have on one's person" meaning ordinarily used in conversational English. (It's intent is to manufacture your consent, to give up your right to bear arms, in exchange for a licensed commercial activity of carrying firearms for hire. Firearms is another such dishonest legal term of art.)

The meaning of "carry" must be determined from its use in the Constitution and in the statutes, as determined by the following interpretive rules:

1. The legislature "...cannot invoke the sovereignty of the people to override their will as declared in the Constitution." Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330 (1935). (So "carry" can not be the same as "bear.")

2. The legislature "...cannot [redefine the words used in the Constitution], since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate." Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920). (So "carry" is not explicitly defined by the legislature!)

3. Since "The Constitution is a written instrument ... its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now."

4. Words used in the constitution "...must be read with the ... significance of the experience to which they were addressed -- a significance not to be found in the dictionary;" United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56 (1950), therefore, the search for the meaning of words must begin with the constitution.

Here is how "carry" is used in the Constitution, both U.S. and Mass.:

Massachusetts Constitution, Articles of Amendment, Article XLVI, Section 2 (amended by Article CIII): "All moneys raised by taxation ..., and to carry out legal obligations...;" Article XLVIII, II., Section 2: "... the general court ... shall appropriate such money ... to carry such law into effect;" Article LXXXIII: "public offices ... carrying on the powers and duties of such offices..." and NOTE: "A Resolve providing for carrying the new Constitution into effect was passed..." and "... the General Court passed a law to ascertain and carry out the will of the people ..." The United States Constitution, Article. I., Section. 8., Clause 18: "Congress shall have Power To ... make all Laws ... for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers..."

Here is how "carry" is used in the Mass. General Laws:

"When the meaning of a statute is brought into question, a court properly should read other sections and should construe them together;" Commonwealth v. Robert Murphy, 409 Mass. 665 (1991), "...our rule of construction [is] that words in a statute must be considered in light of the other words surrounding them." Commonwealth v. Brooks, 366 Mass. 423 (1974); as "Undoubtedly, there is a natural presumption that identical words used in different parts of the same act are intended to have the same meaning." Atlantic Cleaners & Dyers, Inc. v. United States, 286 U.S. 427 (1932):

MGL 64F § 2 requires a license for "motor carriers" to carry;
MGL 159B § 4 requires a permit for "contract carriers" to carry;
MGL 159B § 8 requires a certificate for "common carriers" to carry;
MGL 159B § 10 requires registration of "interstate carriers" to carry;
MGL 159B § 15A requires a permit for "agricultural carriers" to carry;
MGL 140 § 131 "A license shall entitle a holder thereof to carry firearms..."
MGL 266 § 38 states carriers are "in the business of transporting...property for hire;"
MGL 161A § 47 authorizes bus carriers "for the carrying of passengers for hire;"
MGL 90 § 51M (2017) grants public and private carriers "license...for the transportation of persons for hire;"
MGL 159 § 12 regulates common carriers in the "carriage of passengers for hire;"
MGL 161 § 52 states carriers of mail are companies that carry the mail for hire;
MGL 90 § 49O (2017) states public air carriers are "engaged...in...air transportation for hire;"
MGL 41 § 98 authorizes police officers the "powers and duties" to "carry" weapons;
MGL 147 § 8A provides sheriffs, his deputies, and any similar officer may carry weapons in the performance of their duties;
MGL 140 § 131P exempts any [officer, agent or employee, member of the military or other service who] is authorized ... to carry or possess [a] weapon [when] acting within the scope of his duties to be exempt from the basic firearms safety certificate;
MGL 147 § 29A requires any watch, guard or patrol agency to maintain daily records of guards and other employees carrying guns in the performance of their duties; where watchmen, guards, private patrolmen or other persons, described in MGL 147 § 22 are those who, "for hire or reward, ... protect persons or property;" and finally, while MGL 147 § 21A provides that "A police cadet shall ... not carry arms." (Notably, § 21A does not prohibit cadets from "bearing arms.")

Finally, "...the law is the definition and limitation of power." Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886) and "Thus far, we have not traveled, in our search for the meaning of the lawmakers, beyond the borders of the statute." United States v. Great Northern Railway Co., 287 U.S. 144 (1932). In other words, if the law doesn't describe "carry" to mean the ordinary to "have on one's person," then it must not be presumed to mean so, and it's meaning is confined to the context in which it is used in the published law.

The price of Liberty is your diligent reading of what our politicians are proposing in our laws, the vigilance to ensure that they do not exceed the powers we delegate to them, and the courage to make them accountable to us at all times. Massachusetts Constitution, Part the First, See Article V.

Afterall, politicians are our substitutes and agents...
I feel like playing...

The examples you show here are not definitions within the law or constitution but rather uses of the word "carry". In the law, as in the rest of the world (well maybe not your world), a word's meaning will either be defined or is used as is commonly accepted or it will be specifically defined for use within the given chapter. If you want to fight what is commonly accepted as the meaning of the word, you certainly can do that. But you would lose because carry and bear are commonly accepted as the same thing in most context. And context also matters. And the absence of a definition does not allow you to pick any definition you want. And ultimately context will also matter.
 

cams

NES Member
Rating - 100%
43   0   0
Joined
Sep 7, 2013
Messages
8,456
Likes
32,163
Location
Boston
I’m not a lawyer but I know a thing or two about planning and tactics, not so dissimilar to a court case in theory. If I was a lawyer representing you, I’d refuse to take your case just out of principle and lack of information security surrounding your intent and defense.

I understand that you’re representing yourself, which is entirely fool hardy in itself, but I can’t see you doing yourself any favors by these long rambling posts. A fool and his freedom are soon departed, or something like that.
 

Dr. Kang Lu

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 30, 2020
Messages
62
Likes
267
Location
New England
I feel like playing...

The examples you show here are not definitions within the law or constitution but rather uses of the word "carry". In the law, as in the rest of the world (well maybe not your world), a word's meaning will either be defined or is used as is commonly accepted or it will be specifically defined for use within the given chapter. If you want to fight what is commonly accepted as the meaning of the word, you certainly can do that. But you would lose because carry and bear are commonly accepted as the same thing in most context. And context also matters. And the absence of a definition does not allow you to pick any definition you want. And ultimately context will also matter.

Firstly, if the entitlement to "carry" and the right to "bear" are to be arbitrarily and indiscriminately construed and applied, it would improperly equate statutory entitlements with constitutional rights, thereby grossly violating the doctrines of constitutional repugnancy, avoidance, duty, preservation and preference, to wit:

"...an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803);

"'where a statute is susceptible of two constructions, by one of which grave and doubtful constitutional questions arise and by the other of which such questions are avoided, our duty is to adopt the latter.'" Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227, (1999) quoting United States ex rel. Attorney General v. Delaware & Hudson Co., 213 U.S. 366, 408 (1909);

"when a statute is reasonably susceptible of two interpretations, by one of which it is unconstitutional and by the other valid, the court prefers the meaning that preserves to the meaning that destroys." Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388 (1935); and finally,

if any statute conflicts with the Constitution, "the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents." The Federalist No. 78.

So obviously, "carry" can not mean the same as "bear," as legislation is "... to be construed and applied in harmony with, and not to thwart, the purpose of the Constitution." Phelps v. U.S. 274 U.S. 341 (1927).

But a bigger question still is the "presumption of innocence."

Who bears the burden of proof --
Me to show that carry does not mean bear?
Or the prosecutor to show that carry can mean bear?

I don't have to prove my innocence, the prosecutor must prove my guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Can he prove beyond a reasonable doubt that "carry" means "bear?"
Can he prove beyond a reasonable doubt that my MGL 62C § 55A "arms for personal use" is a MGL 140 § 121 "firearm?"
Can he prove beyond a reasonable doubt the license to carry applies to people bearing arms for personal use?

Additionally, “[d]ue process requires that the State disprove beyond a reasonable doubt those ‘defenses’ that negate essential elements of the crime charged.” Commonwealth v. Robinson , 382 Mass. 189, 203 (1981).

So can he disprove beyond a reasonable doubt that I was not in fact bearing arms for personal use?
Can he disprove beyond a reasonable doubt that the license to carry is not in fact a professional license?
Can he disprove beyond a reasonable doubt that licensing violations are properly adjudicated before an executive branch agency?

Lemme know what you think!
 

Broccoli Iglesias

NES Member
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Joined
Sep 18, 2010
Messages
40,463
Likes
66,993
I will remake the video with much better information:

HOW TO BEAT GUN CHARGES IN MA
- "STFU and let a lawyer do the talking."

End video.

Straight to the point 5 second video.

Most prosecuted people would be out free if they didn't open their mouth. Dont take my word for it, talk to a State prosecutor or someone that is friends with one.
 

Broccoli Iglesias

NES Member
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Joined
Sep 18, 2010
Messages
40,463
Likes
66,993
I’m not a lawyer but I know a thing or two about planning and tactics, not so dissimilar to a court case in theory. If I was a lawyer representing you, I’d refuse to take your case just out of principle and lack of information security surrounding your intent and defense.

I understand that you’re representing yourself, which is entirely fool hardy in itself, but I can’t see you doing yourself any favors by these long rambling posts. A fool and his freedom are soon departed, or something like that.
If you represent yourself, wouldn't it be wise to at least use a State provided lawyer? ... at least to have the dude give some advice on the background while you prepare all the work, it can't hurt. Or maybe hav etje guy file whatever paperwork needs to be filed while you prepare your defense.

Serious question - I would like to hear some opinions on that.
 

Rob Boudrie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
42,395
Likes
23,331
If you represent yourself, wouldn't it be wise to at least use a State provided lawyer? ... at least to have the dude give some advice on the background while you prepare all the work, it can't hurt. Or maybe hav etje guy file whatever paperwork needs to be filed while you prepare your defense.

Serious question - I would like to hear some opinions on that.
The state provides a lawyer only after you have liquidated your savings, home equity and retirement funds.
 

cams

NES Member
Rating - 100%
43   0   0
Joined
Sep 7, 2013
Messages
8,456
Likes
32,163
Location
Boston
If you represent yourself, wouldn't it be wise to at least use a State provided lawyer? ... at least to have the dude give some advice on the background while you prepare all the work, it can't hurt. Or maybe hav etje guy file whatever paperwork needs to be filed while you prepare your defense.

Serious question - I would like to hear some opinions on that.
I wouldn’t represent myself on a traffic ticket appeal in MA, never mind on an alleged felony gun charge with a side of hooker attached to it.

She’ll prolly be the states first witness. Junkies and hookers don’t do well locked up for more than a day. They’ll say anything the state wants them to as long as they know they can still go get a fix in an hour or two.

We’re just spectators in the end, I hope the guy fairs well, but I don’t see that happening here.
 

AHM

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Messages
20,275
Likes
24,556
Location
Some caves off Route 40 past Groton
I’ll tell you what man, with my body and your brains, we could rule this block. lol
total-recall-kuato.jpg
 

42!

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
9,347
Likes
8,027
OP still talking like the judge is going to let him present all this to a jury. He's going to melt down when the judge says STFU or be locked up for contempt until you do.

OP can drag the trial out, and appeal and appeal, but the reality is he can't win by taking this path. And NO, SCOTUS will never take up this case even if it does get submitted to them. You can take the position that he's fighting for freedom, but the way he is doing it is a guarantee lose with a high likelihood of negative repercussions to the overall gun ownership issue.
If you want to fight, at least take a position and approach that may help, or at least won't add to the damage. What you're doing is hurting the 2a cause, not helping.

And OP, you need to keep this in mind because it will come up. you had an LTC, so at one point you knew you needed one. It was only after it was taken away that you adopted the position that you didn't need one. A good prosecutor will want to know what points of law changed between you understanding the requirement and your new position that an LTC is not required..... Or is just because you lost yours? Juries don't like it when the accused changes to a different belief system when the original becomes inconvenient. And "beyond reasonable doubt" means what the jury says it means, not what you say it means.

And you statements where you list "Can he prove beyond a reasonable doubt..." The prosecution doesn't have to prove any of this. You want him to, but he doesn't have to. The jury will start out believing carry and bear mean the same thing. The prosecutor needs to do nothing. You on the other hand need to prove that something that has been taken as a given is actually the opposite and do so in a way that will convince the jury. A jury with a short attention span and a relatively low average IQ. Do you really think you current argument fits that?
 

Dennis in MA

NES Member
Rating - 100%
25   0   0
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
31,150
Likes
24,270
So if I drive on a suspended DL due to chronic drinking and driving, the RMV has to adjudicate it, not the courts???

Yeah, I can't see that happening either. A CWP is NOT a professional license any more than a dog license or a drivers license is one.

And the only Truth worth noting is Carl The Truth Williams.
 

VetteGirlMA

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 3, 2015
Messages
6,412
Likes
13,736
Location
western mass
OP still talking like the judge is going to let him present all this to a jury. He's going to melt down when the judge says STFU or be locked up for contempt until you do.

OP can drag the trial out, and appeal and appeal, but the reality is he can't win by taking this path. And NO, SCOTUS will never take up this case even if it does get submitted to them. You can take the position that he's fighting for freedom, but the way he is doing it is a guarantee lose with a high likelihood of negative repercussions to the overall gun ownership issue.
If you want to fight, at least take a position and approach that may help, or at least won't add to the damage. What you're doing is hurting the 2a cause, not helping.

And OP, you need to keep this in mind because it will come up. you had an LTC, so at one point you knew you needed one. It was only after it was taken away that you adopted the position that you didn't need one. A good prosecutor will want to know what points of law changed between you understanding the requirement and your new position that an LTC is not required..... Or is just because you lost yours? Juries don't like it when the accused changes to a different belief system when the original becomes inconvenient. And "beyond reasonable doubt" means what the jury says it means, not what you say it means.

And you statements where you list "Can he prove beyond a reasonable doubt..." The prosecution doesn't have to prove any of this. You want him to, but he doesn't have to. The jury will start out believing carry and bear mean the same thing. The prosecutor needs to do nothing. You on the other hand need to prove that something that has been taken as a given is actually the opposite and do so in a way that will convince the jury. A jury with a short attention span and a relatively low average IQ. Do you really think you current argument fits that?

Well there can be a legitimate case to bring before scotus but that's assuming that the OP is convicted and lands in jail. I just hope he's hoping for a bench trial because there's almost no chance of winning in a court of law in this state with liberal jurors to pitch his ideas to regarding his innocence. He's begging for jury nullification and the chances of landing a perfect jury of people willing to nullify the charge is just about 0%, about as close as one can come to 0.

The OPs only single Hail Mary is if scotus comes out swinging with the Bruen case and it comes out before the trial and he can leverage it for the trial and he's successful. I mean the probability of the probability of the probability of winning tends towards zero even in this instance.
 
Top Bottom