Massachusetts: This Is The Nation’s Toughest Gun Law

[LOki]

The most deadly weapon in America is the automobile... You have a Constitutional Right to own a firearm but you do not have a Constitutional Right to drive.

So let cut the nonsense and admit firearms are only dangerous to those like you that are ignorant...

Firearms are designed to kill . Cars are not .

Quit falling down the well, Vehicle ownership is not a right, firearm ownership is an absolute right till someone fucks it up for themselves.

“Absolute right “ ? Making shit up again?

Registering guns and their sales doesn’t infrInge on your right to bear arms.

There is no purpose for registering guns and their sales other than to facilitate infringements upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Not true . The reason for it is to prevent guns from falling into the hands of criminals .

No criminal, nor person with criminal intent, will subject themselves to any kind of background check; they will not apply or otherwise attempt to obtain any kind of permit to possess a firearm, and they CERTAINLY WILL NOT register their guns.

Obviously.

Such measures will have no effect on preventing guns from falling into the hands of criminals.

How is it an infringement?

There is no purpose for registering guns and their sales other than to facilitate infringements upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

 

[LOki]

Does it matter what it means to me? If you don't like my answer, you'll start writing versions of the court case that don't exist outside of your imagination. Just like you do with the second amendment.

And no, I'm not digging up court cases for you. YOU quote it if you want to discuss it.

it clearly states, well regulated militia are not infringed when dealing with the security needs of a free State, unlike the unorganized militia.

Wrong. Again. Still.

I can't be wrong; i am resorting to the fewest fallacies.

As has been unambiguously demonstrated previously: you are entirely wrong, because you rely entirely upon fallacies... which you (predictably) defend with some "Appeal to Gibberish."

simply claiming that is a fallacy, unless you can explain why.

Well, since you put it that way, here you go.

 

[danielpalos]

it clearly states, well regulated militia are not infringed when dealing with the security needs of a free State, unlike the unorganized militia.

Wrong. Again. Still.

I can't be wrong; i am resorting to the fewest fallacies.

As has been unambiguously demonstrated previously: you are entirely wrong, because you rely entirely upon fallacies... which you (predictably) defend with some "Appeal to Gibberish."

simply claiming that is a fallacy, unless you can explain why.

Well, since you put it that way, here you go.

it clearly states, well regulated militia are not infringed when dealing with the security needs of a free State, unlike the unorganized militia.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

it clearly states, well regulated militia are not infringed when dealing with the security needs of a free State, unlike the unorganized militia.

It clearly states that everybody gets a machine gun.

 

[danielpalos]

it clearly states, well regulated militia are not infringed when dealing with the security needs of a free State, unlike the unorganized militia.

It clearly states that everybody gets a machine gun.

Well regulated militia may not be Infringed by the unorganized militia simply Because, they are well regulated and weapons qualified.

Our Founding Fathers really were, That liberal.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

it clearly states, well regulated militia are not infringed when dealing with the security needs of a free State, unlike the unorganized militia.

It clearly states that everybody gets a machine gun.

Well regulated militia may not be Infringed by the unorganized militia simply Because, they are well regulated and weapons qualified.

Our Founding Fathers really were, That liberal.

 

[danielpalos]

federalists have a federal doctrine; there is no provision for excuses, Only results.

Google Translate

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

federalists have a federal doctrine; there is no provision for excuses, Only results.

What the fuck is that supposed to mean, Sancho?

What excuses are you talking about?

Did you make that up yourself, or did you get that from a war movie?

 

[danielpalos]

Well regulated militia may not be Infringed by the unorganized militia simply Because, they are well regulated and weapons qualified.

Our Founding Fathers really were, That liberal.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Only well regulated militia may not be infringed, whenever it is about the security of a free State is i

That's not what it says in English.

In English it says that the right of the people shall not be infringed.

Speak English, Sancho.

the People are the Militia. it says, well regulated militia of the People are necessary and shall not be Infringed, when it really really matters.

Not at all as it was written, and if it were written as you claim, it would not appear in the section of the Constitution known as the "Bill of Rights".

means nothing. Our federal Constitution is Express, not Implied.

So the Constitution means nothing? We don’t have to follow the Constitution?

We must follow the Constitution's case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, whether we agree with that case law or not.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, including the Second Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

That's not what it says in English.

In English it says that the right of the people shall not be infringed.

Speak English, Sancho.

the People are the Militia. it says, well regulated militia of the People are necessary and shall not be Infringed, when it really really matters.

Not at all as it was written, and if it were written as you claim, it would not appear in the section of the Constitution known as the "Bill of Rights".

means nothing. Our federal Constitution is Express, not Implied.

So the Constitution means nothing? We don’t have to follow the Constitution?

We must follow the Constitution's case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, whether we agree with that case law or not.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, including the Second Amendment.

We have our Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Looks like the only people in MA to have weapons will be the criminals.

I wish the State good luck with that. LOL

That's what I can't understand, how so many people can't see that laws only affect those who abide by them. Those given to misdeeds are not concerned about laws.

So why have speed limits and motor vehicle laws? In fact, why have any laws if criminals don't abide by them? Does that make sense to you?

It makes no sense because it fails as a confirmation bias fallacy; conservatives ignore examples of firearm regulatory measures working.

 

[Papageorgio]

That's not what it says in English.

In English it says that the right of the people shall not be infringed.

Speak English, Sancho.

the People are the Militia. it says, well regulated militia of the People are necessary and shall not be Infringed, when it really really matters.

Not at all as it was written, and if it were written as you claim, it would not appear in the section of the Constitution known as the "Bill of Rights".

means nothing. Our federal Constitution is Express, not Implied.

So the Constitution means nothing? We don’t have to follow the Constitution?

We must follow the Constitution's case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, whether we agree with that case law or not.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, including the Second Amendment.

Tell that to the left winger, he is the one making silly claims.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It makes no sense because it fails as a confirmation bias fallacy; conservatives ignore examples of firearm regulatory measures working.

Another fucktard thinking his argument wins simply by pointing out a fallacy.

God, so many on here are fucking stupid.

 

[danielpalos]

the People are the Militia. it says, well regulated militia of the People are necessary and shall not be Infringed, when it really really matters.

Not at all as it was written, and if it were written as you claim, it would not appear in the section of the Constitution known as the "Bill of Rights".

means nothing. Our federal Constitution is Express, not Implied.

So the Constitution means nothing? We don’t have to follow the Constitution?

We must follow the Constitution's case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, whether we agree with that case law or not.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, including the Second Amendment.

Tell that to the left winger, he is the one making silly claims.

Our federal Constitution is Express, not Implied.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Our federal Constitution is Express, not Implied.

Then, quit implying.

Read what THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED FUCKING STATES said about it:

"The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment , 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814–821 (1998)."

Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command. The Second Amendment would be nonsensical if it read, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to petition for redress of grievances shall not be infringed.” That requirement of logical connection may cause a prefatory clause to resolve an ambiguity in the operative clause (“The separation of church and state being an important objective, the teachings of canons shall have no place in our jurisprudence.” The preface makes clear that the operative clause refers not to canons of interpretation but to clergymen.) But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. See F. Dwarris, A General Treatise on Statutes 268–269 (P. Potter ed. 1871) (hereinafter Dwarris); T. Sedgwick, The Interpretation and Construction of Statutory and Constitutional Law 42–45 (2d ed. 1874).3 “ ‘It is nothing unusual in acts … for the enacting part to go beyond the preamble; the remedy often extends beyond the particular act or mischief which first suggested the necessity of the law.’ ” J. Bishop, Commentaries on Written Laws and Their Interpretation §51, p. 49 (1882) (quoting Rex v. Marks, 3 East, 157, 165 (K. B. 1802)). Therefore, while we will begin our textual analysis with the operative clause, we will return to the prefatory clause to ensure that our reading of the operative clause is consistent with the announced purpose.4

1. Operative Clause.

a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment ’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5

Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble (“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment(providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.6

What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, Fourth Amendment , and by the First and Second Amendment s, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendment s, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.”

This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

b. “Keep and bear Arms.” We move now from the holder of the right—“the people”—to the substance of the right: “to keep and bear Arms.”

Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).

The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cunningham’s legal dictionary gave as an example of usage: “Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms.” See also, e.g., An Act for the trial of Negroes, 1797 Del. Laws ch. XLIII, §6, p. 104, in 1 First Laws of the State of Delaware 102, 104 (J. Cushing ed. 1981 (pt. 1)); see generally State v. Duke, 42Tex. 455, 458 (1874) (citing decisions of state courts construing “arms”). Although one founding-era thesaurus limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source stated that all firearms constituted “arms.” 1 J. Trusler, The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English Language37 (1794) (emphasis added).

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendmentprotects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

We turn to the phrases “keep arms” and “bear arms.” Johnson defined “keep” as, most relevantly, “[t]o retain; not to lose,” and “[t]o have in custody.” Johnson 1095. Webster defined it as “[t]o hold; to retain in one’s power or possession.” No party has apprised us of an idiomatic meaning of “keep Arms.” Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”

The phrase “keep arms” was not prevalent in the written documents of the founding period that we have found, but there are a few examples, all of which favor viewing the right to “keep Arms” as an individual right unconnected with militia service. William Blackstone, for example, wrote that Catholics convicted of not attending service in the Church of England suffered certain penalties, one of which was that they were not permitted to “keep arms in their houses.” 4 Commentaries on the Laws of England 55 (1769) (hereinafter Blackstone); see also 1 W. & M., c. 15, §4, in 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 422 (1689) (“[N]o Papist … shall or may have or keep in his House … any Arms … ”); 1 Hawkins, Treatise on the Pleas of the Crown 26 (1771) (similar). Petitioners point to militia laws of the founding period that required militia members to “keep” arms in connection with militia service, and they conclude from this that the phrase “keep Arms” has a militia-related connotation. See Brief for Petitioners 16–17 (citing laws of Delaware, New Jersey, and Virginia). This is rather like saying that, since there are many statutes that authorize aggrieved employees to “file complaints” with federal agencies, the phrase “file complaints” has an employment-related connotation. “Keep arms” was simply a common way of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else.7

At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998) , in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment … indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think that Justice Ginsburg accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.

It goes on further here: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Do you disagree with THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED FUCKING STATES, Sanchito?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

...and why did it cross out my text?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

More NON-implying.

"c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment . We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendment s, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendmentimplicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 16"

So, you see, Sanchito. You are just fucking WRONG. You are so damn wrong, you should castrate yourself.

 

[Lakhota]

Shoppers Boycott Publix Over Store’s Donations To NRA-Backed Candidate

Go Shoppers! This helps to send a message to states who opposed reasonable gun control.

 

[Clementine]

I believe all gun owners should be required to have a permit and undergo the same requirements as outlined in the OP. Anyone not willing to undergo such requirements should not be allowed to have guns. It's a small inconvenience to help make us all more secure from gun violence.

How will you get criminals, terrorists and crazy people to follow the laws? There are illegal guns everywhere and hundreds more coming across our porous border daily.

You are an idiot. The left wants to take away the good people's means of defending themselves against the animals of the world.