Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Massachusetts SJC rules 2nd Amendment does not apply to states

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    36

    Post imported post

    http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/...1/NEWS/3110340

    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
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076

    Post imported post

    wolffe wrote:
    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."
    Where do these people come from? Are they even capable of cognizant thought? It is obvious that they are not capable of logical thought.

    Yup, the fact that 95 percent of violent criminals don't have gun licenses justifies the need for licensing requirements.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UT
    Posts
    333

    Post imported post

    gutshot wrote:
    rpyne wrote:
    wolffe wrote:
    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."
    Where do these people come from? Are they even capable of cognizant thought? It is obvious that they are not capable of logical thought.

    Yup, the fact that 95 percent of violent criminals don't have gun licenses justifies the need for licensing requirements.


    How is it that Ma., the site of the first battles of the Revolution and the Boston Tea Party, has no right to bear arms in it's constitution?
    They remember well that an armed populace can and will overthrow tyranny…And the liberals are all about tyranny….as long as it is liberal tyranny.



    I have given up on Mass. 30 years of Ted Kennedy and now, Barney Frank. The good people of Mass. Keep electing politicians that give them the government they have….I hope that one day they will realize what they have given up, and gotten nothing in return.



    Gun control laws are never pointed at the criminals, they are always pointed at the law abiding taxpayer.





    Good luck to gun owners in Mass. you have my sympathy, for what it is worth.



    Steve

    Steve


    "Life is hard, its even harder when you are stupid!"

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
    Posts
    408

    Post imported post

    Massachusetts: 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. Pt. 1, art. 17 (enacted 1780).
    [Interpreted as collective right only, Commonwealth v. Davis, 343 N.E.2d 847 (Mass. 1976).]



    They do have a RKBA provision, but they're still holding to the defunct "collective" theory. I would have thought Heller would make it so state constitutional RKBA amendments would have to be interpreted the same way. No matter, in 2 months the 2A will be enforceable in MA.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605

    Post imported post

    We wil see about that when The United States Supreme Court rules on this issue later this year!

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama, ,
    Posts
    1,338

    Post imported post

    Lets hope the SCOTUS postdates the new right from some micro dot, like those
    loons found a 200+ year old right to gay marriage postdated in theirs.

    Did they address how the state knew he acquired the gun without registering, and
    didn't possess it from before the constitution was written?

    But I thought they were a Commonwealth therefore don't have states rights to not
    recognize the federal constitution. Bet Chelsea just loves Arizona this week.

    But forgive my ignorance, aren't we at war not peace right now, so the constitutional
    confiscation is mute. Can this be the reason his highness won't call it a war, it would
    allow the people to arm.



  7. #7
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    Yesthe SJCmissed a significant opportunity to right that which is wrong, but fear not. SCOTUS will ensure that the 2A is incorporated. Then we will see significant scurrying as various liberal courts tie themselves into pretzels to try and justify that which cannot be justified.


    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitableand let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come . PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    East of Bellingham. , Washington, USA
    Posts
    12

    Post imported post

    Sorry for that lossfolks.

    Born, and raised in MA. Lived there for 22yr. All my family is still there, and I visit about twice a year. Other than family I don't miss a thing. Theres more rules per square inch in that state than there is in the entire state of WA. I recently was going to get a family members shotgun from MA, but in the end I said you should keep it for when a hell breaks loose. It still puts a huge smile on my face each time I walk into the local gun shop out here show them my WA Id, and say I'll take that one. Oh, and that cop in the article is the exact time of uninformed person that we don't need protecting or families (what does he care? He's got a gun, and can sleep soundly every night knowing he can protect his family from all the illegal gun owners out there). I hope the Supreme Court makes the correct ruling on this subject. If you folks manage to get an open carry permit I'll be on the first flight to Boston with a couple of buddies. Good luck, and don't stop fighting for your Constitutional Rights!!! Other wise people like our law enforcement buddy there win.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Hey, Massa2sh!+s SJC, now that your crappy ruling is toast...

    What will happen now? People have the right to keep and BEAR arms.

  10. #10
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Swanzey,NH, ,
    Posts
    218
    Hey, Glidden what are you going to tell your MassChiefs now? Oh! By the way is the Town of Lee aware how much time you spend doing ANTI-GUN stuff? Are you doing it on thier dime?

    Now when a COP denies some one a LTC (outside of being a prohibited person) there could possibly be a civil rights case made against the licensing authority. Most likely the city or town would not like the expense of defending that person and leave them hung out to dry. Works for me.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    What will happen now? People have the right to keep and BEAR arms.
    The PDR's kangaroo court has had its decision shoved up its ass where it belongs. Needs to be refiled and they will have no choice but to change their decision.

Posting Permissions

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