Court says DC gun ban violates individuals' Second Amendment rights

drgrant said:
IMO if society believes that Joe shouldn't be allowed to own firearms- then
it is doing so because it believes that Joe is a threat to public safety... and
therefore the "system" needs to incarcerate him for a longer period of
time. (Or it needs to reexamine wether or not joe felon is truely
dangerous... EG, if a guy gets bagged on a felony for a nonviolent crime, and then
is released, I fail to see what the point of disarming him is.) The way the justice
system is supposed to work is criminals are supposed to serve jail time in order
to fulfill a perceived debt to society... if this is the case, then violent crimes should
be given a larger "debt".

Seriously, though... if someone is considered dangerous enough that they
can't legally own a firearm, do we really want them walking around
freely? And after that... no dumb law is going to keep them from getting
a gun if they really want it. (If they're incarcerated, that might be pretty
difficult for them to hurt someone, though. ) If these lawmakers were really
interested in public safety they would keep violent offenders in jail longer- and
not make up half assed excuses for laws that have unintended consequences
on the public. Things like FIP and Lautenberg amendment
do more to infringe rights than they do in terms of actually protecting
people.

IMO changing sentencing guidelines and relaxing deadly force
laws (eg, allowing a deadly force response to ANY deadly force
threat, even under the context of theft) Is a lot better idea than having
dumbass things like FIP/Lautenberg.

I digress.. now that we've caused drift.


-Mike
Click to expand...


I agree with you on there not being a point to disarming someone for a non violent crime. Also I'm in favor of relaxing deadly force laws (as I said in a perfect world Joe wouldn't have made it out of the bank alive). Maybe relaxed deadly force laws would help reduce prison crowding and you could keep the thugs locked up longer.

I hope this court descision ends up being a big step in the right direction, with many more big steps to follow.
 
I agree with that point weeble, it's the illegal guns that are a problem and criminals are inclined to buy those.

As for the deadly force laws, yes the MA definitions are a load of crap and should be changed. The right to self defense shouldn't be compromised in any way.

-Tom
 
TomH said:
I agree with that point weeble, it's the illegal guns that are a problem and criminals are inclined to buy those.
Click to expand...
What's an "illegal gun"? A 20mm revolver? A grenade launcher?

Guns are just objects: it's the possessor that is acting legally or illegally, not the gun.

Be precise: what you mean is "guns obtained illegally" or "guns obtained by prohibited persons".

Kyle
 
So from the people who actually understand all the leagal mumbo jumbo in this court case, what are the possible outcomes of this? What is supposed to happen as a result of this and what is likely to actually happen as a result of this? What sort of leagal presidence or case law does this generate that we can use to our advantage in Commiechusetts, I mean after all they did mention "free" state many times.
 
csharpdev said:
So from the people who actually understand all the leagal mumbo jumbo in this court case, what are the possible outcomes of this? What is supposed to happen as a result of this and what is likely to actually happen as a result of this? What sort of leagal presidence or case law does this generate that we can use to our advantage in Commiechusetts, I mean after all they did mention "free" state many times.
Click to expand...

Even if the 2nd amendment is determined to be an individual right, states
like MA will still suffer because the 2nd amendment is not incorporated.
The typical scenario would be that while the feds would lose a TON of authority to
regulate firearms (remember that, the DC gun ban, by extension is a matter of
federal fiat, not state) I don't see widespread effects being imparted upon the
states, unless someone makes a big push to incorporate the 2nd amendment... eg,
make it binding upon the states.

See:
Wikipedia Article about BOR incorporation of rights

-Mike
 
Why isn't the 2nd ammendment already binding in all states, its meant for the WHOLE country not just some of it [rolleyes] I know states have some discretion to set their own rules but can't they be declared unconstitutional with regards to the US constitution? If it isn't meant for the states then where is it applicable? Also the judges in court would do well to read some quotes from the founding fathers that I've seen, that state the "militia" IS the people, and is meant to be a safeguard against a corrupt and interfering government. If they're looking for interpretation why not follow what the people who wrote it said.

-Tom
 
Well, lets hope this makes it all the way through. This anti bullshit has gone on for far too long.
 
The incorporation problem can be worked around in the many states that have a state constitutional right to keep and bear arms. And most states' RKBA are more explicit than the Federal one.

Ohio:

§ 1.04 Bearing arms; standing armies; military powers (1851)

The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.
 
And this is in the Massachusetts state constitution:

Article XVII. 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.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm just young and naive but I would say that MA laws directly violate the state constitution as well as the U.S. constitution.
 
I would agree Tom, but as you are well aware liberals have no regard for the law or the Constitution...
 
Mass. Const. art. XVII provides:

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.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has held that art. XVII does not guarantee individual ownership or possession of weapons. Commonwealth v. Davis, 343 N.E.2d 847, 849 (Mass. 1976). In Davis, the court rejected defendant’s challenge to a state law prohibiting the possession of a short-barreled shotgun. Davis, 343 N.E.2d at 850-51. The court reasoned that “[p]rovisions like art. 17 were not directed to guaranteeing individual ownership or possession of weapons.” Rather, the right granted in art. XVII relates to service in an organized militia. Davis, 343 N.E.2d at 848-849. Further, the court noted that the statute was “part of a large regulatory scheme to promote the public safety, and there is nothing to suggest that, even in early times, due regulation of possession or carrying of firearms, short of some sweeping prohibition, would have been thought to be an improper curtailment of individual liberty or to undercut the militia system.” Id. at 849. See also, Commonwealth v. Murphy, 44 N.E. 138, 138 (Mass. 1896) (rejecting art. XVII challenge to statute forbidding private militias, noting that "it has been almost universally held that the legislature may regulate and limit the mode of carrying arms").

In Chief of Police of Shelburne v. Moyer, 453 N.E.2d 461, 464 (Mass. App. Ct. 1983), the Massachusetts Court of Appeals concluded, consistent with Davis, that a statute requiring a person to have a license in order to carry a firearm did not violate art. XVII because “[t]here is no right under art. 17…for a private citizen to keep and bear arms and thus to require that a citizen have a license to do so is not unconstitutional.” Accord, Dupont v. Chief of Police of Pepperell, 786 N.E.2d 396, 400 (Mass. App. Ct. 2003).
 
Well from the decisions of the MA supreme court, I can see that liberals don't have ANY regard for it Derek.... since when does "the people" not mean a private citizen [thinking]
 
TomH said:
Well from the decisions of the MA supreme court, I can see that liberals don't have ANY regard for it Derek.... since when does "the people" not mean a private citizen [thinking]
Click to expand...

Since you live in a socialist utopia.
 
The MA Constitution is a bit poorly worded. But surely at some point MA ratified the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights did they not? So it would seem that we should also be protected under the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Which came first MA Const. art. XVII or U.S. Const. Amendment 2?
 
It shouldn't matter which came first, since the U.S. Constitution applies to all states. I think the problem is that the anti's will argue that "the people" means militia, and that both constitutions only apply to an outdated idea of local militia. Which I think is a load of bull.

-Tom
 
Jose said:
The incorporation problem can be worked around in the many states that have a state constitutional right to keep and bear arms. And most states' RKBA are more explicit than the Federal one.
Click to expand...

Not really.... state problems are still state problems. For instance- Mass SJC
has already ruled that the RKBA provision in the state constitution does not
apply to individual ownership rights. (or something similarly disgusting).

-Mike
 
"Reasonable Restrictions"

I've read the entire thing. What do you think of this portion of the majority's decision?

"Reasonable restrictions also might be thought consistent
with a “well regulated Militia.” The registration of firearms
gives the government information as to how many people would
be armed for militia service if called up. Reasonable firearm
proficiency testing would both promote public safety and
produce better candidates for military service. Personal
characteristics, such as insanity or felonious conduct, that make
gun ownership dangerous to society also make someone
unsuitable for service in the militia."

One theme to their argument is that the 2nd covers both a militia concept as well as an individual rights concept, both supporting the other, but not excluding the other. I wonder how folks will react to the notion of registration being OK since it supports and furthers the concept of the "well regulated militia" portion of the 2nd?
 
TomH said:
It shouldn't matter which came first, since the U.S. Constitution applies to all states.
Click to expand...

The problem is, from a legal/practical standpoint, that unincorporated
amendments are not strictly binding on the states. This means, for
instance, that a lawyer cannot use the 2nd amendment in a non
federal case as a form of an affirmative defense. If anyone wonders
why there is a lack of 2nd amendment cases, the 2nd being unincorporated
is a LARGE part of the answer- because it's not legally relevant unless
the case pertains the federal government. FWIW, I never said it
was right, that's just the way things are on the ground.

Compare this to say, a 4th amendment case... where the 4th is pretty
much binding on the states- eg, things like evidence obtained via
unconstitutional means is frequently discarded from being relevant in a
court case, with some exceptions here and there. (the issue gets
thorny, but the bottom line is that US courts pretty much universally
respect the 4th amendment. )

We all know what the constitution was supposed to do, but unfortunately
that hasn't panned out in reality due to technicalities. It is up to
the courts and legislators to clean up the mess. (Or revolutionaries, for
that matter... as time goes on I'm getting the impression that eventually
would be the only way. ) Personally I don't think incorporation of the 2nd
is likely due to the fact that essentially it would destroy every state's supposed
"right" for its government to regulate firearms. (And we all know how much the
commie states would love that.... )

And yes- I will readily acknowledge that the issue is confusing... I was always
confused as to why the 2nd is not binding; then I found out about how incorporation
works. Read the WP article I posted earlier in the thread for more info. FWIW, I do
agree with you, all parts of the BOR -SHOULD- be binding on the states- but that is not
the current reality.

-Mike
 
Last edited:
Well just because that is how it is now, doesn't mean it will always be that way. If more people stood up and said this isn't right things would change. People who think like us should organize, and I mean REALLY organize for change. I know GOAL is out there working for change, but something like re-affirming the 2nd ammendment or changing the interpretation of the MA constitution would have a huge effect.

-Tom
 
In determining whether the Second Amendment's guarantee is an individual one, or some sort of collective right, the most important word is the one the drafters chose to describe the holders of the right-"the people". That term is found in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
It has never been doubted that these provisions were designed to protect the interests of individuals against government, intrusion, interference, or usurpation.


Every other
provision of the Bill of Rights, excepting the Tenth, which
speaks explicitly about the allocation of governmental power,
protects rights enjoyed by citizens in their individual capacity.
The Second Amendment would be an inexplicable aberration if
it were not read to protect individual rights as well.
Click to expand...

This Is the part that the Anti's just don't get.[angry]
 
Last edited:
69hdfl said:
This Is the part that the Anti's just don't get.[angry]
Click to expand...

The 2nd Amendment could say: Every American citizen has the right to own and carry any weapon they choose for their own defense and defense of their family and community against evil doers to include protection from their government.


And the anti's still wouldn't get it.
 
csharpdev said:
Sarah's Brady Bunch doesn't get it at all, for if they did they'd take up arms next to us. They don't get the big picture.
Click to expand...

Oh no, they "get" it. The Second Amendment is designed to protect American Citizens from people such as themselves. They want to win the support of Americans by pretending to aid and protect them, then stab America in the back.

Private ownership of firearms has no place in their progressive/communist adgenda.
 
ICZEOZN said:
Oh no, they "get" it. The Second Amendment is designed to protect American Citizens from people such as themselves. They want to win the support of Americans by pretending to aid and protect them, then stab America in the back.

Private ownership of firearms has no place in their progressive/communist adgenda.
Click to expand...

Isn't communism, socialism, statism etc. only advantageous if you are in control? I'd say Sarah Brady is no more in control of our government than we are; they just happen to be listening to her right now. If Sarah Brady got what's she's asking for I'd be willing to bet in 10 years she'll be saying... "Oh No what I have done."

hence why I say they don't really get the big picture.
 
Finally. D.C. leads the way. Now we just need to get NY, Chicago, and Detroit on the same page (those are the other three, right?).
 
csharpdev said:
...they just happen to be listening to her right now. If Sarah Brady got what's she's asking for I'd be willing to bet in 10 years she'll be saying... "Oh No what I have done."

hence why I say they don't really get the big picture.
Click to expand...

Very true. The Brady Bunch is currently a valuable asset to the progressives; however, as soon as the 2A ceases to exist, they are usless to the progressives and are reduced to mere citizens, stripped of their membership in the elite.
 

Similar threads

High Court Upholds NRA’s 1st Amendment Rights To Defend 2nd Amendment
Replies
0
Views
85
Coyote33
Coyote33
Second Amendment Activism @ the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court
Replies
2
Views
386
Spartan65
Spartan65
Tyrant NY judge says Second Amendment doesn't exist in her court room
2 3 4
Replies
103
Views
5K
calsdad
calsdad
ANTI-GUN POLITICIANS DISPARAGE SCOTUS AS SECOND AMENDMENT CASES, ELECTION LOOMS
Replies
1
Views
219
Palladin
Palladin
Supreme Court staying away from Illinois gun ban cases as Thomas seeks 'more guidance' on protected weapons
Replies
7
Views
435
Uzi2
U
Back
Top Bottom