Massachusetts Constitution and the RKBA

[In_God_We_Trust]

In looking at the constitution, the following is present:

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.

I do not see anything in there that says:
*Except for EBRs or semi-automatics or anything that is deemed upsetting to the sheepole at large

Basically, where does the United States Constitution, State constitution, and case history blur, and why can we not have a recall on the individuals [who are pushing the legislation forward] for breaking their oath of office?

There are at least 120,000 lawful gun owners in this State and some that do not with axes to grind, and all you need is 10,000 votes in someones district...

Furthermore: As everyone knows, automotive accidents are close to the top of the highest causes in the US: http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

So, why not regulate the type of car sold in MA? Red, low profile tires, v8, sporty.... NO! That is a danger to society and a law should be filed that any car that is sporty and has two or more of the following:

• is red
• has low profile tires
• has a spoiler
• has a v6 or v8 (some are termed rotary engines)
• has a bra
• has a removable top
• has a sport muffler

Is deemed to be illegal in this state!

You know what the problem is.... People would think MAHOLES were NUTS! WHY!?!?!? Because you are a lawful owner of a car and there is no link to a look, make, or add-on function of a car which could actively cause harm or allow the operator to further cause harm to others.

Now, look at the gun debate and EBRs.
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

• Large capacity ammunition magazines
• Folding or telescoping stock
• Conspicuous pistol grip
• Bayonet mount
• Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one

Anyhow, just want to see what people think as I am preparing a letter to be sent to all who vote and/or signed the legislation that will be discussed today.

 

[Ninsho]

On that not we need to ban high capacity vehicles too (or at least those made after a to be specified date). Its not that these vehicles happen to be in more accidents but that extra capacity means it COULD harm more people.

Sigh [sad2]

 

[matt1956]

is red
has low profile tires
has a spoiler
has a v6 or v8 (some are termed rotary engines)
has a bra
has a removable top
has a sport muffler

NO EFFING WAY!

You just described my car (minus the bra, although i have been thinking about getting one becaue of all the little chips that the nose gets, I dont want to repaint it again.)

 

[jdubois]

Red, low profile tires, v8, sporty....

Well... I'm screwed

 

[matt1956]

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.

the real sad part is that this is even MORE evident that they intended it as an INDIVIDUAL right and yet MA is the one of the worst...

I don't know why GOAL doesnt challenge this one...

 

[pdm]

Because there's already precedent in the system against an individual rights interpretation?

 

[jcr]

I don't know why GOAL doesnt challenge this one...

I know why.

Any challange to a MA gun law based on Article 17 would be dismissed by lower courts by citing Commonwealth v. Davis (1976). The MA Supreme Judicial Court, with its current make-up being more anti-gun than it was in 1976, is not the least bit interested in reversing Davis.

So, after some amount of effort and lawyer fees, the MA law would remain in force.

To get a different result in the courts, we'd need a pro-gun-rights Governors for years, along with a pro-gun-rights Governors Counsel (which confirms appointments), so that a majority of SJC justices would respect the right to keep arms.

A quicker fix would be to elect a pro-gun-rights legislature which could repeal the bad MA gun laws. We get a chance to elect everyone in both houses every two years. Alas, the chances of that seem low also.

To read the Davis opinion, take the link at http://mysite.verizon.net/vze1prt1/davismnu.htm . It is not long. I do not find their argument compelling -- actually it is incorrect and cites easily de-bunked anti-gun sources. Nevertheless, it stands.

 

[doobie]

Don't you know...constitutions don't mean anything. They aren't applicable anymore and haven't been for two hundred years!

 

[strangenh]

So, why not regulate the type of car sold in MA? Red, low profile tires, v8, sporty.... NO! That is a danger to society and a law should be filed that any car that is sporty and has two or more of the following:[...]

SHHHHH. You are going to Give Them Ideas!

 

[ronbok]

I know why.

Any challange to a MA gun law based on Article 17 would be dismissed by lower courts by citing Commonwealth v. Davis (1976). The MA Supreme Judicial Court, with its current make-up being more anti-gun than it was in 1976, is not the least bit interested in reversing Davis.

So, after some amount of effort and lawyer fees, the MA law would remain in force.

To get a different result in the courts, we'd need a pro-gun-rights Governors for years, along with a pro-gun-rights Governors Counsel (which confirms appointments), so that a majority of SJC justices would respect the right to keep arms.

A quicker fix would be to elect a pro-gun-rights legislature which could repeal the bad MA gun laws. We get a chance to elect everyone in both houses every two years. Alas, the chances of that seem low also.

To read the Davis opinion, take the link at http://mysite.verizon.net/vze1prt1/davismnu.htm . It is not long. I do not find their argument compelling -- actually it is incorrect and cites easily de-bunked anti-gun sources. Nevertheless, it stands.

+1. Totally true. The only way to get this overturned is to keep putting the RIGHT Governor's in place - year after year. The Heller v. D.C. case will help, but it's not the whole answer. The answer is having more people show up at hearings (there were six of us there today), voting, writing letters, voting and oh...did I say voting?

 

[KMaurer]

There you go again: trying to apply logic and reason to Massachusetts government.

Ken

 

[drgrant]

+1. Totally true. The only way to get this overturned is to keep putting the RIGHT Governor's in place - year after year.

I'm not very lucky and I have a 10,000 times better chance of winning
powerball than anything remotely approaching that ever happening in MA-
sans maybe a major insurrection or something.

-Mike