Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Washington State says yes, Massachu

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Post imported post

    POSTED TODAY IN THE CONNECTICUT SECTION.

    The Washington Supreme Court says YES and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court says NO

    This obviously sets up a conflict that will only be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.


    Here is a link to more on this case: http://www.universalhub.com/2010/com...thaniel-depina


    March 11, 2010 12:00 AM
    [/b]

    The right to bear arms as defined in the Second Amendment does not apply to the states, so Massachusetts can regulate who can have firearms and how those weapons are to be stored, the state's high court ruled Wednesday.

    The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court unanimously dismissed two challenges to the state's gun laws that require citizens to register with police departments before acquiring a firearm, as well as keeping guns stored in a locked container or equipped with a trigger lock.

    The court upheld the conviction of Nathaniel DePina, a New Bedford man who is serving a two-year jail sentence for carrying an illegal firearm. His lawyer, Paul Patten of Fall River, challenged the conviction on the grounds that the state's gun licensing laws were unconstitutional.

    Patten said the Supreme Judicial Court missed an opportunity to contribute to the debate surrounding the Second Amendment.

    "I think they could have at least given some guidance on the issue," Patten said. "This leaves all the main questions unanswered."

    Meanwhile, law enforcement officials and gun control advocates praised the ruling.

    "We have seen in Bristol County, and I believe this is true throughout Massachusetts, that 95 percent of the gun violence is committed by those who have no lawful right to possess or carry a firearm," Bristol County District Attorney C. Samuel Sutter said.

    "That is a powerfully compelling argument for the need for licensing requirements for the possession of firearms."

    New Bedford Police Chief Ronald E. Teachman said he was "relieved" with the court's rulings.

    "If the SJC had not ruled this way, where would we be? That anyone can have a gun, regardless of criminal background or mental health?" Teachman said.

    The challenges before the Supreme Judicial Court flowed from the U.S. Supreme Court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which said that the Second Amendment applied to private citizens in addition to state-regulated militias.

    On Wednesday, Massachusetts Justice Ralph Gants said the Heller decision did not have any bearing on state law.

    "We conclude that, based on current federal law, the Second Amendment does not apply to the states, either through the 14th Amendment's guarantee of substantive due process or otherwise," he said.

    "The defendant's challenge likewise fails under our Massachusetts Constitution, which recognizes no individual right to keep and bear arms."

    Jim Wallace, president of the Gun Owners Action League, a gun rights organization, decried the judge's ruling.

    "What a mess. It's very clear to me that Justice Gants did not actually read the Heller decision," he said.

    The issue could be revisited soon. Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in McDonald v. Chicago, a case in which the court is asked to determine whether the Second Amendment applies to state and local laws.

    "The Chicago case will be a remarkable decision," Teachman said. "It will have a profound effect either way."

    Attorney Dwight Duncan, a professor at the new UMass School of Law at Dartmouth, said the Supreme Judicial Court may be on "very thin ice" in its gun rulings.

    "Given that virtually every provision of the Bill of Rights has been incorporated against the states by the 14th Amendment's due process clause, I think it highly unlikely that the U.S. Supreme Court will decide that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states," Duncan said.




  2. #2
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Edward Peruta wrote:
    ...

    "We have seen in Bristol County, and I believe this is true throughout Massachusetts, that 95 percent of the gun violence is committed by those who have no lawful right to possess or carry a firearm," Bristol County District Attorney C. Samuel Sutter said.

    "That is a powerfully compelling argument for the need for licensing requirements for the possession of firearms."

    ...
    Is this moron for real? The only compelling argument that can be logically deduced from the statistic cited is that firearm registration is NOT stopping criminals from obtaining firearms and using them to commit crimes.

    "Our laws are failing so miserably, they must be necessary!"

    My guess is the M@$$holes will have to go to Circuit Court of Appeals, where the decision will hinge on the outcome of McDonald.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  3. #3
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660

    Post imported post

    In a word...sad. I understand this is state court, but they just couldn't wait until SCOTUS ruled. Talk about agenda driven. Anyway this is Massachusetts after all.

    Their50 States Freedomrankings are 47 in personal freedom, below even the PRK who's ranked 37. And in total overall ranking they are 43 compared to PRK's 47. Looks like they're gonna slip down a spot or two after this one.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  4. #4
    Regular Member PincheOgro1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Perris, Ca., California, USA
    Posts
    420

    Post imported post

    Edward Peruta wrote:
    "We have seen in Bristol County, and I believe this is true throughout Massachusetts, that 95 percent of the gun violence is committed by those who have no lawful right to possess or carry a firearm," Bristol County District Attorney C. Samuel Sutter said.
    95 percent of the gun violence is committed by those who have no lawful right to possess or carry a firearm !

    Well that says it all right there. The LAW ABIDING CITIZEN needs to arm themselves to protect themselves against these HUMAN DEBRI.

  5. #5
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    My guess is the M@$$holes will have to go to Circuit Court of Appeals, where the decision will hinge on the outcome of McDonald.
    No, from State Supreme Court you go directly to the US Supreme Court for federal questions.

    I do not believe we want this criminal case deciding the licensing issue at SCOTUS but I need to find more about his possession case.

  6. #6
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    Ok read his case. We do not want him as our poster boy for licensing but oh well...he's got nothing to loose except our 2nd A. Rights...

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    560

    Post imported post

    He has just as much right to stand up for his rights when they're being violated as anybody else.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •