I am out here in the People's Republic of San Francisco, in Kommifornia, just read through 351 pages of posts, and have to say that I am honestly not sure how this can stand.
The Attorney General has grossly overstepped her authority and is deciding that 22 years of precedent, based on the official written opinions of the ATF, are no longer lawful.
The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts states in Article X. "Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty and property, according to standing laws. He is obliged, consequently, to contribute his share to the expense of this protection; to give his personal service, or an equivalent, when necessary: but no part of the property of any individual can, with justice, be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people. In fine, the people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent. And whenever the public exigencies require that the property of any individual should be appropriated to public uses, he shall receive a reasonable compensation therefor."
As the owner of several once lawful, now unlawful firearms, this represents a violation of my property rights by executive fiat without compensation.
Furthermore, Article XI states "Every subject of the commonwealth ought to find a certain remedy, by having recourse to the laws, for all injuries or wrongs which he may receive in his person, property, or character. He ought to obtain right and justice freely, and without being obliged to purchase it; completely, and without any denial; promptly, and without delay; conformably to the laws"
I had no opportunity to seek recourse thus far, this sweeping change was brought in secret, without the benefit of debate or hearings, and reeks of politically motivated grandstanding.
Article XVII states that "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."
If I have this right, how can the Attorney General strip it bare with a stroke of the pen, based on her feelings, especially since there are so few crimes of violence committed with these very weapons she seeks to ban here in The Commonwealth?
Finally, Article XXIV says "Laws made to punish for actions done before the existence of such laws, and which have not been declared crimes by preceding laws, are unjust, oppressive, and inconsistent with the fundamental principles of a free government."
Clearly, AG Healy has re-written the law, making thousands of otherwise Law Abiding Massachusetts residents unindicted felons overnight. We were assured that by having less than the limit of cosmetic features which defined a so called "assault weapon", we were in full legal compliance. This was the position of the apolitical ATF technical division for more than 22 years. This was just reversed retroactively by the AG, turning tens of thousands of people into potential felons., despite no proven authority for her to do so.
I have nothing nice to say at this point, so I am going to leave my hotel and drink as much bourbon as my expense account can handle.
The Attorney General has grossly overstepped her authority and is deciding that 22 years of precedent, based on the official written opinions of the ATF, are no longer lawful.
The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts states in Article X. "Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty and property, according to standing laws. He is obliged, consequently, to contribute his share to the expense of this protection; to give his personal service, or an equivalent, when necessary: but no part of the property of any individual can, with justice, be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people. In fine, the people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent. And whenever the public exigencies require that the property of any individual should be appropriated to public uses, he shall receive a reasonable compensation therefor."
As the owner of several once lawful, now unlawful firearms, this represents a violation of my property rights by executive fiat without compensation.
Furthermore, Article XI states "Every subject of the commonwealth ought to find a certain remedy, by having recourse to the laws, for all injuries or wrongs which he may receive in his person, property, or character. He ought to obtain right and justice freely, and without being obliged to purchase it; completely, and without any denial; promptly, and without delay; conformably to the laws"
I had no opportunity to seek recourse thus far, this sweeping change was brought in secret, without the benefit of debate or hearings, and reeks of politically motivated grandstanding.
Article XVII states that "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."
If I have this right, how can the Attorney General strip it bare with a stroke of the pen, based on her feelings, especially since there are so few crimes of violence committed with these very weapons she seeks to ban here in The Commonwealth?
Finally, Article XXIV says "Laws made to punish for actions done before the existence of such laws, and which have not been declared crimes by preceding laws, are unjust, oppressive, and inconsistent with the fundamental principles of a free government."
Clearly, AG Healy has re-written the law, making thousands of otherwise Law Abiding Massachusetts residents unindicted felons overnight. We were assured that by having less than the limit of cosmetic features which defined a so called "assault weapon", we were in full legal compliance. This was the position of the apolitical ATF technical division for more than 22 years. This was just reversed retroactively by the AG, turning tens of thousands of people into potential felons., despite no proven authority for her to do so.
I have nothing nice to say at this point, so I am going to leave my hotel and drink as much bourbon as my expense account can handle.
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
![[angry]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/008.gif "Angry [angry]")
