Massachusetts: This Is The Nation’s Toughest Gun Law

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

it isn't. only the slackers of the unorganized militia whine about it; well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

So, what is a well-regulated militia?

 

[danielpalos]

learn how to stop resorting to fallacy.

Learn how to explain how I am resorting to fallacy.

natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

it isn't. only the slackers of the unorganized militia whine about it; well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

So, what is a well-regulated militia?

10USC246 is also, federal law, right wingers; why Only complain about less fortunate illegals to federal law.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

Assume I agree. How does that change the meaning of the 2nd Amendment?

States can regulate firearms. The 2nd bans the federal government from doing so.

Right?

My interpretation does not offend yours.

Assume that McDonald v. Chicago didn't happen.

The power to regulate weapons lies in the hands of the States, right?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

10USC246 is also, federal law, right wingers; why Only complain about less fortunate illegals to federal law.

You are arguing that the 2nd Amendment only prevents the Federal Government from disarming the National Guard, which was not established until 1903, more than 100 years later?

That makes little sense.

The more likely interpretation is that Congress shall not disarm people so they can serve in the militia (organized or not, 100 years later).

 

[danielpalos]

natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

Assume I agree. How does that change the meaning of the 2nd Amendment?

States can regulate firearms. The 2nd bans the federal government from doing so.

Right?

My interpretation does not offend yours.

Assume that McDonald v. Chicago didn't happen.

The power to regulate weapons lies in the hands of the States, right?

The citizens in the several States, should have no federal problems, keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

 

[LOki]

Even if true - it's a small price to pay for owning deadly weapons!

One is a tool, the other is designed as a weapon.

It's sadly funny to watch NRA gun nutters try to equate hammers and vehicles with AR-15s and other weapons designed to kill.

The facts are that hammers murder more people than AR-15s do. That is what is called a fact. And, it is a fact that you can't dance around.

Please prove with credible sources that hammers are used to INTENTIONALLY murder more people than AR-15s - in the U.S.

Credible Source.

 

[LOki]

Even if true - it's a small price to pay for owning deadly weapons!

One is a tool, the other is designed as a weapon.

Wrong, they are BOTH tools, and they are no better or worse than the person using them. And, more to the point, assholes with hammers kill more people in the USA every year, than assholes with AR-15s do.

Conservatives are truly stupid with their “people get killed by cars, and hammers, and knives” BS.

All you rightwing morons need to do is cite this simple fact:

Less than 2 percent of gun violence and crime is committed with long guns; even fewer with ARs and similar rifles/carbines.

As a consequence, laws seeking to ban ARs and similar rifles/carbines are not valid because they fail to have the desired effect of significantly reducing gun crime and violence.

Moreover, measures that seek to ban ARs and similar rifles/carbines are prima facie un-Constitutional if subject to strict scrutiny level of judicial review.

Now back to our regularly scheduled rightwing stupidity…

Except the gov can meet that high standard because of the public safety interest . ARs serve no purpose other than to kill/maime lots of people in a short amount of time .

There is only one motive in the wish to see the targets of criminal violence undefended.

There is only one kind of person who wishes to see the targets of criminal violence disarmed.

They are the problem. Not Guns. Not the NRA.

The people who wish to see the targets of criminal violence disarmed are the problem; they are the entire problem, and they are making their violent intentions clear.

 

[Lakhota]

One is a tool, the other is designed as a weapon.

It's sadly funny to watch NRA gun nutters try to equate hammers and vehicles with AR-15s and other weapons designed to kill.

The facts are that hammers murder more people than AR-15s do. That is what is called a fact. And, it is a fact that you can't dance around.

Please prove with credible sources that hammers are used to INTENTIONALLY murder more people than AR-15s - in the U.S.

Credible Source.

Look at the FBI link below:

Expanded Homicide Data Table 11

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The citizens in the several States, should have no federal problems, keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

But note, it says the right of the PEOPLE shall not be infringed.

You are saying that PEOPLE is not individual, but collective?

That is not the intent of the founders:

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788.
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING!!!

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

 

[danielpalos]

10USC246 is also, federal law, right wingers; why Only complain about less fortunate illegals to federal law.

You are arguing that the 2nd Amendment only prevents the Federal Government from disarming the National Guard, which was not established until 1903, more than 100 years later?

That makes little sense.

The more likely interpretation is that Congress shall not disarm people so they can serve in the militia (organized or not, 100 years later).

The citizens in the several States, should have no federal problems, keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

But note, it says the right of the PEOPLE shall not be infringed.

You are saying that PEOPLE is not individual, but collective?

That is not the intent of the founders:

The Intent and Purpose of our Founding Fathers, is in the first clause.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The Intent and Purpose of our Founding Fathers, is in the first clause.

Yes, but the operation (what they actually did) is in the 2nd clause, which is to prevent the federal government only (not States), from disarming, or even limiting arms, available to the people.

If they had said:

"A well-trained dog, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The intent and purpose may have changed, but the operation did not.

States retain the power to regulate arms.

Which is why I say Massachusetts' laws do not violate the 2nd Amendment. (We would also need to assume McDonald v. Chicago didn't happen or that it was incorrectly decided. I have not made up my mind on that yet. Still thinking about it.).

At the same time, all federal gun laws not related to taxation are unconstitutional. The 1934 NFA is only partly constitutional, in that it requires a tax on machine guns and SBRs. Everything else, and all other federal gun laws are infringements and encroachments on State powers.

 

[Timmy]

None of our rights are absolute . All have limitations because of safety interests of society.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

None of our rights are absolute . All have limitations because of safety interests of society.

But our government has limitations too.

The federal government is barred from regulating weapons. (2nd Amendment)

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

None of our rights are absolute . All have limitations because of safety interests of society.

Correct – a fact those on the ridiculous right seem incapable of understanding.

So the issue isn’t whether government may or may not regulate firearms – as indeed the fact that they may regulate firearms is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute – rather, the issue is what firearm regulatory measures are warranted, and what measures are not.

And banning AR 15s is clearly not warranted – there is no objective, documented evidence in support of the notion that such a ban would have the desired effect of reducing gun crime and violence, and the constitutionally of such a ban would be dubious.

 

[Flash]

Did you hear about Massachusetts and the Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP)?

The Federal government has recently released the military issued Colt Model 1911s to the CMP. These are WWII, Korean and Vietnam era very collectable historical firearms. Most of them will be marked US Army or US Marine Corps.

The state that gave us that asshole John Kerry and Indian Princess Liesalot will not allow the pistols to be distributed by the CMP.

Liberals are turds.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Correct – a fact those on the ridiculous right seem incapable of understanding.

So the issue isn’t whether government may or may not regulate firearms – as indeed the fact that they may regulate firearms is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute – rather, the issue is what firearm regulatory measures are warranted, and what measures are not.

And banning AR 15s is clearly not warranted – there is no objective, documented evidence in support of the notion that such a ban would have the desired effect of reducing gun crime and violence, and the constitutionally of such a ban would be dubious.

The only issue I have with your statement above is WHICH government may regulate firearms?

It has been my contention from the beginning that the 2nd Amendment explicitly bars federal authority on firearm regulation. That is why the 1934 NFA was characterized as a tax law, rather than weapons regulation. They knew they had no authority other than taxation.

That is also why I now argue that Massachusetts' law is not a 2nd Amendment infringement, because the 2nd only applies to Congress.

McDonald v. Chicago could make it a 14th Amendment due process issue (or privileges and immunities issue, if Thomas' reasoning is later accepted), but 2nd Amendment infringement, it is not.

In the words of a sign Justice Scalia had on his desk (according to Judge Neapolitan), the Mass. laws as they relate to the 2nd Amendment, are "Stupid, but Constitutional."

 

[danielpalos]

The Intent and Purpose of our Founding Fathers, is in the first clause.

Yes, but the operation (what they actually did) is in the 2nd clause, which is to prevent the federal government only (not States), from disarming, or even limiting arms, available to the people.

If they had said:

"A well-trained dog, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The intent and purpose may have changed, but the operation did not.

States retain the power to regulate arms.

Which is why I say Massachusetts' laws do not violate the 2nd Amendment. (We would also need to assume McDonald v. Chicago didn't happen or that it was incorrectly decided. I have not made up my mind on that yet. Still thinking about it.).

At the same time, all federal gun laws not related to taxation are unconstitutional. The 1934 NFA is only partly constitutional, in that it requires a tax on machine guns and SBRs. Everything else, and all other federal gun laws are infringements and encroachments on State powers.

nothing but right wing propaganda. the second clause follows the context of the first clause. that is all. The militia and the people are plural, not individual. natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

nothing but right wing propaganda. the second clause follows the context of the first clause. that is all. The militia and the people are plural, not individual. natural rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

But, doesn't the "collective" or "plural" argument run contrary to the specific statements of the founders?

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788.

That is referring to individuals, not a collective. Keeping their own arms?

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

That we may exercise BY OURSELVES to be at all times armed. That is DECIDEDLY not depended on a collective or a State. BY OURSELVES!!!!

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

Every man - not a collective.

The founders clearly intended to prevent Congress from passing laws regarding the individual's possession of weapons. It cannot be construed any other way, given the statements above.

 

[TheDude]

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.

I feel much better knowing that law-abiding citizens will go through leaps and bounds to acquire a gun. All while criminals simply bypass the program. This will go a long way toward reducing gun crime