SJC: Bill of Rights does not apply to Massachusetts

This may already be dealt with. (5.00 / 2)

The landmark Supreme Court decision - Washington DC vs. Heller - striking down the Washington, D.C. hadngun ban was interpreted to mean ONLY a Federal ban in several jurisdictions.  The Supreme Court has already heard argumetns in chicago vs. McDonald which would extend this decision to states and municipalities as well, and a decision is exptected soon.

What, you're SURPRISED that the SJC took the most liberal interpretation possible?  If the SCOTUS affirms Heller, this decision will be reversed.

Thank you, President George W. Bush!

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 13:03:24 PM CST

PP is right on here, and recall.... (5.00 / 1)

that this is the same SJC that ruled 7-0 that gays had a right to march in a private St. Patrick's Day Parade, and THAT ruling was struck down 9-0 by the Supreme Court.

I suspect we'll see a repeat in McDonald v. Chicago later this year.


They like me, they really, really like me!

---

by: Paul R. Ferro @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 20:13:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Uh, 2nd amendment is not the whole Bill of Rights (0.00 / 0)

Wikipedia runs them down.

---

by: bobneer @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 14:36:12 PM CST

Uh (0.00 / 0)

If one doesn't apply then they by logic they all don't apply Bob.

Full Disclosure
http://www.redmassgroup.com/pr...

---

by: Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 14:39:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

So? (0.00 / 0)

It's still a part of the Bill of Rights.

Saying that we have other rights doesn't eliminate this one.

"the Federal deficit is about ethics and morality, and it is, by far, the biggest problem we face. It weakens the country and exerts a creeping, negative influence on everything we do." - Charlie Baker.  HT:  Brent041

---

by: Mike "DD4RP" Rossettie @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 15:18:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Oh, well that's OK then... (0.00 / 0)

...it isn't the whole bill of rights.

Only the 2nd one.

Well, I guess when the 4th one is getting nullified then we shouldn't worry about that.

And when the 3rd doesn't apply in Kansas, well that's OK too because, well...  it isn't the whole thing you know.

Before long they will all be gone...  Like the Truffula trees.

"Don't let me get away with it. Check me out. Don't be the sucker generation." -Ronald Reagan

www.inBrockton.com

---

by: BrocktonDave @ Sat Mar 13, 2010 at 06:42:08 AM CST

[ Parent ]

.....and (0.00 / 0)

I was going to wait a few months to get a 12-guage.  Thanks for the prod, SJC....now I'll go buy one this weekend.

"The best part will be the arrest of all the biotech workers....."  --JH

---

by: ElectricStrawberry @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 15:16:22 PM CST

Jury Duty (5.00 / 1)

On the questionaire I put "Radical Alternative worldview"
If asked about this I have no problem outlining how government repeatedly does not follow the law.  It is not contempt but it is that strong trend for a not guilty verdict because the justice system is beyond repair.

---

by: Lasthorseman @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 15:43:07 PM CST

ABOMINABLE! (0.00 / 0)

This legal gun owner in the Commonwealth would like to ask if it's too late to consider the subject of judicial nullification?!

Can we at least get an amendment for SJC review, reappointment, and/or election?!  

"Tomorrow will be better for as long as America keeps alive the ideals of freedom and a better life." - Walt Disney

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 17:56:44 PM CST

The Right to Bear Arms in Massachusetts (0.00 / 0)

http://www.cltg.org/cltg/goalr...

Rally for Our Rights
The Boston Common, May 17, 1999
Excerpts from my comments as an event speaker:

. . . More than a decade before the Bill of Rights was ratified (1791), seven years before even the U.S. Constitution itself was drafted (1787), the Commonwealth of Massachusetts adopted its own state constitution (1780).

The Preamble of our state Constitution states the intent of the document, underscoring the individual's "natural rights" and the limited power granted by "social compact" to the government.

Following those three paragraphs, in Part the First, Article One of our Declaration of Rights, the very first sentence of the very first paragraph states:

"All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness."

The very first sentence of the very first paragraph of Article One of Part the First of the Declaration of Rights of the Inhabitants of Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Lest there be any doubt concerning the meaning of the founders' words written two centuries ago, this article was later amended only 23 years ago in 1976, as the "Equal Rights Amendment," but those founding words were retained exactly as they were originally written.Let there be no question about why they were so prominently positioned in 1780.

The then-very recent American Revolution was not launched just over taxation without representation. The spark that ignited it was the King's minions coming to take away colonists' guns. . . .

        "Every tax is a pay cut -- A tax cut is a pay raise."

---

by: chipford @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 16:32:57 PM CST

What if the 2nd Amendment was phrased like the 1st ? (0.00 / 0)

The First Amendment to the U.S. Consitution:  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

"Congress shall make no law" is the operative phrase here.

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:  "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"[s]hall not be abridged" is the operative phrase in this one.

What if the Second Amendment was subsituted for the First, and read:  "A well educated electorate, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear books and newspapers, shall not be infringed." ?

Would our state SJC now be putting "trigger locks" on the Boston Globe, Herald, and others?

Would they be praised, celebrated, if such an attempt was imposed?


        "Every tax is a pay cut -- A tax cut is a pay raise."

---

by: chipford @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 17:16:59 PM CST