Results 1 to 13 of 13

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
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    The dynasty is over. Prepare to be assimilated into the US.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666

    Post imported post

    wolffe wrote:
    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.




    No, no, no... it says "....shall not be infringed." no training, no class, no license, nada...the government is to be absent from a citizens right to 'keep' (own) and 'bear' (carry, open or concealed).

    Now for one minute let's tear apart this stupid licensing idea.

    You take ONE test to drive a car when you are 16 and then NEVER have to prove competency again. The test is simple, multiple choice and teaches you nothing that you can't read on your own. You take ONE driving test and then NEVER have to prove your ability ever again, EVER. Your driver’s license is recognized in any of the 50 states. Therefore, you can have learned to drive in Alaska with very little traffic, yet your license is good in New York, New York or Los Angeles, CA.

    You can therefore be 66 years old and have not taken a test, written or physical in 50 YEARS. Do you think cars have changed in the last 50 years? The 'you have to have a license to drive' argument doesn't hold water, it is a joke. How many times driving have you said to yourself; 'that old man shouldn't be driving', 'that woman shouldn't be driving', 'that immigrant shouldn't be driving', 'that teenager shouldn't be driving?' We have all said this to ourselves. The argument simply is ridiculous and is now null and void.

    And even with licensing, we still have; drunk drivers, negligent drivers,hit and runs,get away (from crime) drivers, stolen cars and more.

    YOU SEE THAT LICENSING DRIVERS (AND CARS) DOES NOTHING TO PREVENT CRIME FROM CARS...OR FROM DRIVERS.

    We must all simply accept that we choose to live in a free society. In a free society their are inherit risks and there is evil and there is great joy. Part of living in a free society is that we must accept responsibility for our actions. There are things in a free society that people will always not like and will always be opposed to and never agree upon, we must learn to accept that and yet choose to live together in peace and respect.

    LIVE FREE OR DIE!

    Live Free or Die!

  4. #4
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    This story has been covered over in the News & Political Alerts sub-forum, including a copy of the complete ruling.

    It will be interesting to see what happens to all these convictions once the McDonald ruling comes out.

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum4/39965.html

    UPDATE: New Forum Link: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?70619

    TFred
    Last edited by TFred; 06-29-2010 at 03:40 PM. Reason: Add link to new forum post

  5. #5
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    This story has been covered over in the News & Political Alerts sub-forum, including a copy of the complete ruling.

    It will be interesting to see what happens to all these convictions once the McDonald ruling comes out.

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum4/39965.html

    TFred
    Once incorporated via the 14th, what the PDR of Taxachusetts courts say will be meaningless.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

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

    Post imported post

    Can Paul Patten sue the supremes of Mass for false imprisonment went the SCOTUS
    reminds them there is a 2A in the constitution. After all this court has found so many
    rights in their state constitution that are written in invisible ink and post dated to the 21st century before they are even implemented. If they aren't covered under color of law then nothing is.
    More important why is a state court ruling on a federal right. That alone should be
    grounds for arresting the judges. They have no authority to rule on federal law.
    Now when they get slapped down does he get his civil rights back? There is no need
    for FBI to reinstate lost rights when they were never lost.






  7. #7
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Bump... guess we can watch for news on this case now!

    TFred

  8. #8
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922
    I hope Nathaniel DePina sues Massachusetts for millions of dollars for violating his fundamental civil rights and jailing him unconstitutionally for his exercising his fundamental CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!!
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SLC, Utah, USA
    Posts
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by wolffe View Post
    "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 that gun licensing and registeration doesn't do sh*t for preventing crimes"
    Fixed...

  10. #10
    Regular Member gsx1138's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington, United States
    Posts
    884
    Looks like some judge just got owned.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958
    This Ralph Gantz fella is an idiot. This ruling will be reversed before the ink is dry.

  12. #12
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664
    Quote Originally Posted by SlackwareRobert View Post
    Can Paul Patten sue the supremes of Mass for false imprisonment went the SCOTUS
    reminds them there is a 2A in the constitution. After all this court has found so many
    rights in their state constitution that are written in invisible ink and post dated to the 21st century before they are even implemented. If they aren't covered under color of law then nothing is.
    More important why is a state court ruling on a federal right. That alone should be
    grounds for arresting the judges. They have no authority to rule on federal law.
    Now when they get slapped down does he get his civil rights back? There is no need
    for FBI to reinstate lost rights when they were never lost.
    Wow dude you have no idea how state/federal law works do you? Your sentiment is right but your understanding of the rulings involved is non-existent.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    This is clearly and undeniably contrary to the higher (SCOTUS) ruling on Heller.

    What an idiot - a gross disservice to the people in his state!
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

Posting Permissions

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