• 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.

Massachusetts case law says the 2nd Amendment only applies to restricting the federal government?

PappyM3

NES Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2012
Messages
7,744
Likes
13,824
Feedback: 29 / 0 / 0
So, I noticed some key text in this case on a mass.gov webpage. I started reading further, and I'm flabbergasted.

Based on current Federal law, however, we cannot say that the Second Amendment applies to the States, either through the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of substantive due process or otherwise.

In Heller, the Supreme Court acknowledged that in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) (Cruikshank), it held that "the Second Amendment does not by its own force apply to anyone other than the Federal Government." Heller, supra at 2812. In Cruikshank, supra at 553, the Supreme Court explained that the Second Amendment "means no more than that [the right to bear arms] shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government . . . ." In Heller, when considering whether any of its precedents challenged the conclusion it had reached about the meaning of the Second Amendment, the Court stated that its decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886), and Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 538 (1894), had "reaffirmed" after Cruikshank "that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government." Heller, supra at 2813 n.23. Heller did not overrule these decisions. [Note 4]

We recognize that each of the cited cases limiting the application of the Second Amendment to the Federal government preceded the Supreme Court's selective incorporation of some provisions of the Bill of Rights under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that each was decided without reference to or consideration of the requirements of substantive due process.


This judge (who seems to have since passed), is basically saying the 2nd amendment does not extend to the 14th amendment, so states can say:
rGUwgL8.gif

Can any of the legal eagles here elaborate on whether this really has as far reaching implications as I think it does?
 
SCOTUS, in McDonald v.s. City of Chicago, said otherwise, that 2A IS incorporated under 14A. Note the dates though. The MA case ruling was delivered in March 10, 2010 whereas the McDonald ruling was 3 months later, on June 28th. Don't know if that MA case has/had been appealed and overturned.
Also, the MA judiciary (and legislature and executive branch) is well versed in ignoring/subverting/side-stepping... SCOTUS rulings.
 
Back
Top Bottom