• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

I need your help, and to help yourselves! *2A Battle*

IIRC Dr. Lu beat those charges.
I intend to beat those charges, you bet!

And when I do you will know that the government is stealing
people’s rights because they fail to invoke the power of the constitution:

no man has ever been charged, convicted or sentenced for “bearing arms,” without a license.
but plenty of people have done time for unlicensed possession of a firearm.

the question for those of you in this thread is:
why wouldn’t you simply keep and bear arms like it‘s plainly stated in the Constitution?

i mean you do support the Constitution, and the 2A, don’t you?
 
Having a more than casual knowledge of MA gun laws, although by no means an "expert", I would really like you to cite the specific text that says this. Not some twisted convoluted chain of logic with you personal conclusion, but the actual text..... I'll wait.


BTW it's long been established that POs don't need an LTC to carry.

You gotta use your brain brother...
Government wouldn't be governing mental very well, if they put everything in one statute, would they?

So read:

MGL 140 § 131 states: "A license shall entitle a holder thereof to ... possess and carry ... firearms," and the statute is an "act authorizing the making of contracts with the government through its various officers and departments." The Floyd Acceptances, 74 U.S. 666 (1868); and, "In general, a statute is itself treated as a contract when the language and circumstances evince a legislative intent to create private rights of a contractual nature enforceable against the State." United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. 1 (1977).

MGL 6 § 167A states: (a) "There shall be within the executive office [of public safety and security] a department of criminal justice information services [DCJIS]..." The DCJIS includes the firearm licensing review board (MGL 140 § 130B) and operates the Firearms Records Bureau (803 CMR 2.02), which provides firearms services (Firearms Services). MGL 6 § 167A (g) states "The department may enter into contracts...with...any individual...for the purpose of providing... services...in connection with its work."

Would you agree that the license to carry is a contract "with the government through its various officers and departments," for an entitlement?

Would you agree that parties to the contract for a license to carry includes the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security, and public safety and security officers, employees and other persons, including watchmen, guards, private patrolmen or other persons, described in MGL 147 § 22 who, "for hire or reward, ... protect persons or property?"

If you think I need a license to carry in order to bear arms, you have the burden of proof.

So, show me, where does it say the license to carry is intended for people keeping and bearing arms for personal use (See MGL 62C § 55A)?

It doesn't does it? That's because it's not there:
"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).


So you and all the doubters out there: stop MSU!
 
With all due respect to the legal scholarship:
- An LTC provides a defense to certain charges, however, it is unlikly the court will find that to be a "contract enforceable against the state".
- Contracts with persons working for or on behalf of the FLRB does not make the LTC relationship a contractual one
- I would not agree any court in MA would consider it a contract, but most importantly, my opinion does not matter, nor does yours. Only those of the court if by "matter" you mean decide if the state may use force against you for doing something it does not like you doing.
 
Last edited:
I'm stupid so I'm going to need you to elaborate on this.

You have a right to keep and bear arms, agreed?

But you need a license to carry a firearm, also true?

Yes!

So what we have is a paradox, and the way to solve this paradox is to note that different words mean different things.

Read the statute: MGL 140 § 131 states: "A license shall entitle a holder thereof to ... possess and carry ... firearms..."

Did you see the difference!? Possession of a firearm is an ENTITLEMENT, not a constitutional right.

So what is the entitlement? It is to "carry." Now read the following laws, and tell me what you think "carry" means:

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 the "powers and duties" of police officers to "carry" weapons "while on official business," as employees of the Commonwealth;
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.)

Would you agree that in the statutes, the word carry may mean what carriers do for hire, or the powers and duties of police officers, sheriffs, deputies, and other similar officers to carry weapons in the performance of their duties, or the performance of duties by watchmen, guards, private patrolmen and other persons for hire?

You're NOT stupid, you're dumbed down by mass media, schools, ignorant people and above all -- the government.

READ the LAW!
See attached.
 

Attachments

  • 20220430, Fake Gun Laws In Massachusetts.pdf
    826 KB · Views: 1
With all due respect to the legal scholarship:
- An LTC provides a defense to certain charges, however, it is unlikly the court will find that to be a "contract enforceable against the state".
- Contracts with persons working for or on behalf of the FLRB does not make the LTC relationship a contractual one
- I would not agree any court in MA would consider it a contract, but most importantly, my opinion does not matter, nor does yours. Only those of the court if my "matter" you mean decide if the state may use force against you for doing something it does not like you doing.
So if the LTC is not a contract, with consideration exchanged for an entitlement, then what is it?

YOU (the prosecutor) have the burden to prove that the LTC is NOT a contract!

In other words, you must disprove my defense that the LTC is a contract, and there is no law that subjects me to it. ("Due process requires that the State disprove beyond a reasonable doubt those 'defenses' that negate essential elements of the crime charged." Comm. v. Robinson , 382 Mass. 189 (1981), referencing Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197, 210 (1977))

Can you do it?

I'm betting you can't.
 
My comments are about how the courts will see it.

I expect that my prediction is fairly accurate, and that the "contract argument" will be viewed in the same light as "wages are not income"; "the 2A is my carry permit"; "I am a sovereign citizen" and, of course, "this court is under admiralty law because there is a fringe on the US flag".

But, as I said - my opinion matters not. I am simply predicting what the opinion of those whose voices count will be.

Revoked by Brookline ha ha. NOT GUILTY

+1
 
My comments are about how the courts will see it.

I expect that my prediction is fairly accurate, and that the "contract argument" will be viewed in the same light as "wages are not income"; "the 2A is my carry permit"; "I am a sovereign citizen" and, of course, "this court is under admiralty law because there is a fringe on the US flag".

But, as I said - my opinion matters not. I am simply predicting what the opinion of those whose voices count will be.



+1
Who or what do you think the court is?

Look in the mirror -- Mr. Potential Member of the Jury!

Know your own power man!

"All power residing originally in the people, and being derived from them, the several magistrates and officers of government, vested with authority, whether legislative, executive, or judicial, are their substitutes and agents, and are at all times accountable to them." Massachusetts Constitution, Article V of Part the First.

"When we consider the nature and the theory of our institutions of government, the principles upon which they are supposed to rest, and review the history of their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power. Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but, in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power." Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886).

Who do you think decrees the law? YOU DO!

"Sovereignty means that the decree of the sovereign makes law." American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U.S. 347 (1909).
 
Mr Lu, Your fight against the tyranny here in Massachusetts seems to be, not surprisingly, Quixotic but the more people who fight those who deny us our constitutional rights the better we all will be. Some day someone is going to win. Good luck!

I've fought and beat bigger windmills before.

Nobody fukkn with my Constitution.
 
Just about every MGL has a section of definitions of terms. Often it's section 1. That gives a specific definition of each term in the context of the statute. So "firearm" on one law can mean one thing, while in another it means something else.

There is also a difference between ownership and possession.

Basing an argument on the definition or interpretation of terms isn’t going to go well in MA… that’s only done when it’s in the state’s favor.
 
Just about every MGL has a section of definitions of terms. Often it's section 1. That gives a specific definition of each term in the context of the statute. So "firearm" on one law can mean one thing, while in another it means something else.

There is also a difference between ownership and possession.
You're right!


Not all firearms are "firearms."

For the purpose of an indictment, MGL 277 § 39 provides: "if certain words and phrases are defined by law, they shall be used according to their legal meaning." That is, "When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition, even if it varies from that term's ordinary meaning."

The word "firearm," is one such explicit definition. It is defined not just in MGL 140 § 121, but also in 740 CMR 30.01 - Airport Security, 18 USC § 921 (Chapter 44 Firearms) and 26 USC § 5845 (Internal Revenue Code, Subtitle E. Alcohol, Tobacco and Certain Excise Taxes). Also, the term "handgun" is defined in 940 CMR 16.01 - Hand Gun Sales; but, despite these being physical identical, the definitions are obviously not interchangeable, nor equally applied to every circumstance.

That is, regarding a statute, "... words of universal scope will be construed as meaning only those subject to the legislation." This is plainly observed, as each statute, regulation or code that defines a term invariably begin with an "As used in" statement of application, which confines the definitions to a specific purpose established by the legislature. For example, MGL 140 § 121 defines "firearms" and other like items to mean only those "As used in sections 122 to 131Y, inclusive, ..."

This application of terms is true for any of the numerous commercial and professional activities licensed by the state. The subject matter for each license is clearly defined and confined by the statute; and for every activity defined and licensed by the legislature, there is a correlative and original right, which is both delegated by, and reserved to the people to exercise for themselves. For example the right to cook, clean, and maintain one's own house, to care for one's own children, and to defend one's own life:

The term "poultry" defined in MGL 94 § 118 is "as used in" and applies to MGL 94 § 118 to 131, "inclusive." Whoever processes poultry without a Meat and Poultry Processing license issued under MGL 94 § 120 is punishable up to three years imprisonment (MGL 94 § 129). But as every housewife knows, there is no license for her original right to cook a chicken dinner for her own family; as the chicken on her table is not within the meaning of "poultry" as defined in MGL 94 § 118.

The term "bedding" is defined in MGL 94 § 270 is "as used in" and applies to MGL 94 § 270 to 277, "inclusive." Whoever sterilizes bedding without a license issued under MGL 94 § 275 by the department of public health is punishable up to six months imprisonment (MGL 94 § 277). But as every housewife knows, there is no license for her right to wash her bedding for herself or family; as the bedding on her bed is not within the meaning of "bedding" as defined in MGL 94 § 270.

The terms "pest" and "pesticides" defined in MGL 132B § 2 applies "when used in this chapter" 132B. Whoever applies pesticides without a license issued under MGL 132B § 10 is punishable up to two years imprisonment (MGL 132B § 14). But as every home owner knows, there is no license for his right to buy or mix, and apply pesticide inside his own house; as neither the pest, nor the pesticide he buys, mixes or uses are within the meaning of "pest" or "pesticide" as defined in MGL 132B § 2.

The term "child" defined in MGL 15D § 1A is "As used in" and applies to Chapter 15D. Whoever engages in "child care" within the meaning of Chapter 15D without a license obtained in compliance with 606 CMR 7.00 is punishable up to 2.5 years imprisonment (MGL 15D § 6(a)). But as every parent knows, there is no license for his original right to care for his own child, and his child is not within the meaning of "child" as defined in MGL 15D § 1A.

Thus, the terms "firearms, ammunition, and large capacity feeding device," defined in MGL 140 § 121 mean only those "...used in sections 122 to 131Y, inclusive." Whoever possesses or carries firearms without a license issued under MGL 140 § 131 is punishable up to ten years imprisonment (MGL 269 § 10(m)). But there is no such thing as a "license to keep and bear arms" to defend oneself; and so, the arms I keep for personal use are neither within the meaning of "firearms, ammunition, or large capacity feeding devices," nor "As used in sections 122 to 131Y, [of chapter 140] inclusive."

This application of law is so obvious that the Supreme Court declared: "It is elementary law that every statute is to be read in the light of the constitution. However broad and general its language, it cannot be interpreted as extending beyond those matters which it was within the constitutional power of the legislature to reach." One such matter beyond the constitutional power of the legislature to reach is the right of the people to keep and bear arms for personal use, and for all other lawful purposes.

Would the Commonwealth agree that the term "poultry" defined in MGL 94 § 118 excludes the chicken I cook and eat myself?

Would the Commonwealth agree that the term "bedding" defined in MGL 94 § 270 excludes my bedding, which I wash with on my own?

Would the Commonwealth agree that the terms "pest" and "pesticides" defined in MGL 132B § 2 exclude the pests and the pesticides that may be found in my own house?

Would the Commonwealth agree that the term "child" defined in MGL 15D § 1A excludes my own children, who I care for myself?

Would the Commonwealth agree that the terms "firearms, ammunition, and large capacity feeding device" defined in MGL 140 § 121 exclude my arms for personal use, which I keep for myself? See MGL 62c § 55A and MGL 60 § 24, "MILITARY ARMS": General Law - Part I, Title IX, Chapter 62C, Section 55A, General Law - Part I, Title IX, Chapter 60, Section 24.

What published law shows that the terms "firearms, ammunition, and large capacity feeding device" defined in MGL 140 § 121 include my arms for personal use?
 
You're right!


Not all firearms are "firearms."
A License to carry FIREARMS licenses you to carry things that are not firearms, but a Firearms Identification Card does not allow you to buy or possess firearms.

What published law shows that the terms "firearms, ammunition, and large capacity feeding device" defined in MGL 140 § 121 include my arms for personal use?

The courts would almost certainly consider a lack of exclusion to be sufficient to imply inclusion.
 
Which is why you are wrong. A guy I knew, not a friend and I didn't particularly like him, used to claim that he won every disagreement with me. His logic was simple, he would not accept the definition of terms commonly used and decided that his own was more valid.

For example, he had his own definition for terrorism and refused to accept the commonly used definition as stated by the FBI back then (over 20 years ago).

You seem to be doing something similar, which is a surprise from a person who is a scientist. Even though our understanding is constantly evolving as medicine advances, a lesion is still a lesion, it's not a spaghetti o because someone wants it to be.

So, unless you can get the courts to change definitions, you are going to lose every time. In MA, there is a specific definition of "professional" for legal purposes. A police detective IS, but a police patrol officer is not.

Law is all about the splitting of hairs.



You're right!
 
You're right!


Not all firearms are "firearms."
A License to carry FIREARMS licenses you to carry things that are not firearms, but a Firearms Identification Card does not allow you to buy or possess firearms.



The courts would almost certainly consider a lack of exclusion to be sufficient to imply inclusion.
You are not understanding…

Read the statue MGL 140 § 131: A license shall entitle the holder thereof to purchase, possess and carry firearms.

how does an entitlement detract from your rights?

does my entitlement to work as a doctor detract from your right to care for yourself?
does the requirement me having a license to treat patients diminish the right of my patients to care for himself?

of course not!

there is no such thing as a license to bear arms! Because a Right can not be licensed!

"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. ... As stated by the Supreme Court of Illinois [Blue Island v. Kozul, 379 Ill. 511, 519, 41 N.E.2d 515.] ... a person cannot be compelled "to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution." - Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943).
 
there is no such thing as a license to bear arms! Because a Right can not be licensed!

"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. ... As stated by the Supreme Court of Illinois [Blue Island v. Kozul, 379 Ill. 511, 519, 41 N.E.2d 515.] ... a person cannot be compelled "to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution." - Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943).
The courts have held otherwise. A NY court explicitly found that it was also constitutional to charge a fee to exercise the 2A. Your SCOTUS cite is in direct contradiction with the NY licensing fee decision, but that does not prevent the arrest and conviction of persons not renting this right from the government.

Many of your claims are absolutely correct on a theoretical, but not "as applied" basis.
 
Last edited:
You're right!


Not all firearms are "firearms."
A License to carry FIREARMS licenses you to carry things that are not firearms, but a Firearms Identification Card does not allow you to buy or possess firearms.



The courts would almost certainly consider a lack of exclusion to be sufficient to imply inclusion.
Wrong buddy…

"It is axiomatic that the statutory definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of that term." Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465 (1987).

go read the definition of firearms at MGL 140 § 121: it’s only defined in reference to its USE in section 122-131Y of chapter 140, inclusive! So in essence it takes two things to be a firearm, within the meaning of the statute 1) it’s gotta have the proper physical attributes, and 2) it’s gotta be used within the activities specified in §§ 122-131Y.

So for the purpose of an indictment, MGL 277 § 39 provides: "if certain words and phrases are defined by law, they shall be used according to their legal meaning." That is, "When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition, even if it varies from that term's ordinary meaning." Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000).
 
You have a right to keep and bear arms, agreed?

But you need a license to carry a firearm, also true?

Yes!



READ the LAW!
See attached.

Look I'm all for constitutional carry but sadly Massachusetts will have to be dragged kicking and screaming to that barbeque. They won't go down that road to defeat without taking a few people with them. So be careful. I'd like to live in a world where I can pop down to the local convenience store and buy a newspaper, pack of smokes, some lottery tickets and maybe even a Glock 27 (okay maybe I'll stick to 9mm) without the government having to know a damn thing. It's simply none of their goddam business. I think firearm prohibition and regulation is so 100 years ago and today I'm a modern day 2A suffragette but there is no end to the insanity of the gun grabbers. Believe me I have sat in my chair of power in my office up in the hills of western mass and pondered as a thought experiment of how nice Massachusetts could be if a giant volcano popped out of Beacon Hill tomorrow morning and buried the Eastern 1/3rd of the state in 20 feet of molten lava. At least no more D+80 voting districts and maybe just maybe sanity would come back from the hands of the insane. But alas I'm snapped back into reality living in a nanny state wracked with debt and filled with arrogant self aggrandizing liberals.

In the meantime if I ever were selected for jury duty I would 100% engage in jury nullification on a gun case like yours or a self defense case no matter what a judge/prosecutor would say. Carrying a firearm over an imaginary line on a map is insane especially when our civil liberties are supposed to extend to all 50 states. I don't lose my right to vote, or privacy or right to an attorney by crossing an imaginary line on a map, so I shouldn't sacrifice my second amendment rights.

If you have a solid legal argument and I personally believe you are innocent (and I believe that the act of simply carrying a gun is not a crime no matter what cry baby police and politicians have to say) but remember you will go to trial in a D+50 or more district meaning you will be judged by liberal citizens, liberal judges who will hate your guts and don't even know you and the whole thing will smell like the carcass of a dead kangaroo with the air and imprimatur of authentic justice when it's anything but that.

Remember in this state you can be a gang banger and in and out of prison 100 times for carrying guns and the prosecutors will drop the charges almost immediately. The laws of this state are not for them. They are there to punish the innocent with no criminal record, no history of violence and no bad intention.

This is why I am so virulently anti-cop. Want to stop innocent people from being hassled? Fire lots and lots of cops, prosecutors and judges. They're simply not necessary if laws are only designed to punish the innocent and lionize the wicked.

Best of luck with your case. Make sure you have a damned good attorney who will zealously fight for you.
 
Which is why you are wrong. A guy I knew, not a friend and I didn't particularly like him, used to claim that he won every disagreement with me. His logic was simple, he would not accept the definition of terms commonly used and decided that his own was more valid.

For example, he had his own definition for terrorism and refused to accept the commonly used definition as stated by the FBI back then (over 20 years ago).

You seem to be doing something similar, which is a surprise from a person who is a scientist. Even though our understanding is constantly evolving as medicine advances, a lesion is still a lesion, it's not a spaghetti o because someone wants it to be.

So, unless you can get the courts to change definitions, you are going to lose every time. In MA, there is a specific definition of "professional" for legal purposes. A police detective IS, but a police patrol officer is not.

Law is all about the splitting of hairs.

So for the purpose of an indictment, MGL 277 § 39 provides: "if certain words and phrases are defined by law, they shall be used according to their legal meaning." That is, "When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition, even if it varies from that term's ordinary meaning." Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000).

I don't understand why y'all are advocating for a license on your rights!
I thought this board would be pro-Constitution!
Where the hell did you read "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except by a license?"
 
Look I'm all for constitutional carry but sadly Massachusetts will have to be dragged kicking and screaming to that barbeque. They won't go down that road to defeat without taking a few people with them. So be careful. I'd like to live in a world where I can pop down to the local convenience store and buy a newspaper, pack of smokes, some lottery tickets and maybe even a Glock 27 (okay maybe I'll stick to 9mm) without the government having to know a damn thing. It's simply none of their goddam business. I think firearm prohibition and regulation is so 100 years ago and today I'm a modern day 2A suffragette but there is no end to the insanity of the gun grabbers. Believe me I have sat in my chair of power in my office up in the hills of western mass and pondered as a thought experiment of how nice Massachusetts could be if a giant volcano popped out of Beacon Hill tomorrow morning and buried the Eastern 1/3rd of the state in 20 feet of molten lava. At least no more D+80 voting districts and maybe just maybe sanity would come back from the hands of the insane. But alas I'm snapped back into reality living in a nanny state wracked with debt and filled with arrogant self aggrandizing liberals.

In the meantime if I ever were selected for jury duty I would 100% engage in jury nullification on a gun case like yours or a self defense case no matter what a judge/prosecutor would say. Carrying a firearm over an imaginary line on a map is insane especially when our civil liberties are supposed to extend to all 50 states. I don't lose my right to vote, or privacy or right to an attorney by crossing an imaginary line on a map, so I shouldn't sacrifice my second amendment rights.

If you have a solid legal argument and I personally believe you are innocent (and I believe that the act of simply carrying a gun is not a crime no matter what cry baby police and politicians have to say) but remember you will go to trial in a D+50 or more district meaning you will be judged by liberal citizens, liberal judges who will hate your guts and don't even know you and the whole thing will smell like the carcass of a dead kangaroo with the air and imprimatur of authentic justice when it's anything but that.

Remember in this state you can be a gang banger and in and out of prison 100 times for carrying guns and the prosecutors will drop the charges almost immediately. The laws of this state are not for them. They are there to punish the innocent with no criminal record, no history of violence and no bad intention.

This is why I am so virulently anti-cop. Want to stop innocent people from being hassled? Fire lots and lots of cops, prosecutors and judges. They're simply not necessary if laws are only designed to punish the innocent and lionize the wicked.

Best of luck with your case. Make sure you have a damned good attorney who will zealously fight for you.
your dreams will come true because of nuts like me!

Gimme liberty or I shall defend it myself!
 
The source have held otherwise. A NY court explicitly found that it was also constitutional to charge a fee to exercise the 2A. Your SCOTUS cite is in direct contradiction with the NY licensing fee decision, but that does not prevent the arrest and conviction of persons not renting this right from the government.

Many of your claims are absolutely correct on a theoretical, but not "as applied" basis.
Show me that case, and I shall prove you wrong.

The right to bear Arms can not be licensed because we are a government of delegated powers! GO READ THE CONSTITUTION!!!

"All power residing originally in the people, and being derived from them, the several magistrates and officers of government, vested with authority, whether legislative, executive, or judicial, are their substitutes and agents, and are at all times accountable to them." Massachusetts Constitution, Part the First, Article V.

The people can not delegate a power we do not have; and it is only because the right to self defense and to keep arms therefor, are powers residing originally in the people, that we may delegate these powers to the officers, employees and other persons to protect and to serve us, for hire or in the performance of their duties. The license merely entitles a holder thereof to better serve us, the people, who delegated this power in the first place.

Thus, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, "of course, not subject to law, for [the people are] the author and source of law; but, in our system, while [police] powers are delegated to the agencies of government, [the right to keep and bear arms] itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts." And of course, that original right is "exempt from [licensing] ... because of ... the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends." See Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886) and Kawananokoa v. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349 (1907).

Would you agree that all police powers and duties, including their power and duty to carry weapons are derived from the people, in whom all power reside originally?

Would you agree the Commonwealth agree that the license to carry entitles public safety and security professionals to serve the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts?

What published law shows that the legislature intended to license, condition, diminish or impair a power or right residing originally in the people?

What published law shows that my right to keep and bear arms is in any manner diminished or impaired by not having a license to carry?

WHEN was the last time you applied for a license to bear arms?

It doesn't exist.
 
Back
Top Bottom