Mass. Supreme court overrules 2nd

[INGunGuy]

Well it looks like the libs are at it again in Mass. The Mass. Supreme Court overruled the Second Amendment... Gawd I cant wait until the 2nd is incorporated so all the BS laws can be struck down as unconstitutional...

Mass. Court Upholds Law Requiring Gun Owners to Lock Weapons at Home - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com

INGunGuy

 

[jsgolfman]

The state Supreme Judicial Court ruled Wednesday that the Second Amendment does not overrule the state's right to require owners to store guns safely.

I didn't realize the state of Massachusetts had that right, silly me.

 

[melensdad]

If I understood the questioning and ruling in the HELLER v D.C. case Chief Justice Roberts made a big point out of the fact that the D.C. law prevented people from using a gun for self-defense purposes.

This law requires safe storage, but from what little is in the article does not require the gun to be stored disassembled or unloaded, just that it must have a trigger lock or be in a safe. Chief Justice Roberts made it a point to show the folly of trigger locks in his questioning, but I'm not sure that the Heller ruling actually decided that trigger locks could not be mandated.

 

[Bubba]

The state Supreme Judicial Court ruled Wednesday that the Second Amendment does not overrule the state's right to require owners to store guns safely.

I didn't realize the state of Massachusetts had that right, silly me.

Until the time when (if? ) the 2A is incorporated to the states, Massachusetts has every right in the world to ignore it. While I tend to agree that Mass. legislators and judges list slightly to port, as long as the gun lock law is deemed to be kosher with the Mass. state constitution there's no reason to challenge it in the courts just yet.

 

[dross]

I don't see how this law, though stupid, violates the 2nd Amendment.

 

[singlesix]

simple keep the gun on your person for self defense.

 

[mrjarrell]

It certainly doesn't violate Heller and Scalia's opinion that "common sense" gun laws are permissible.

 

[Indy317]

This is _exactly_ why the US Supreme Court needs to really be specific in future gun rulings. If they don't want to deal with "assault weapons," fine, but when it comes to handguns, be specific. We will now have lawsuits about municipalities only allowing revolvers, excessive registration fees, training requirements to just own, and mandatory trigger locks.

 

[Doug]

NEWS OF THE FUTURE

Dateline: January 2013
In the State of the Union address beginning his second term, President Obama announced his plans for passing the UNiform FIrearms REsponsibility act (UNFIRE). This reasonable and sensible law will require firearms and ammunition to be stored in separate, locked containers at all times except when actually competing in sanctioned shooting events at government sponsored ranges. The ammunition containers will be kept at the approved ranges. This does not violate the 2nd. Amendment because citizens are allowed to own firearms. However, possessing ammunition, except when at a government range, is a capital offense. While there currently are no government sponsored ranges, plans are in place to have at least one range for every 4 states within the next 10 years.

Sensible restrictions on the second amendment are as rare as truthful Demoncraps.

 

[Expat]

I wouldn't consider the government telling me I had to keep my guns locked up at home common sense. I don't think it is any of their darned business. Go after the criminals, leave me and my gun storage choices alone. And if the 2nd is incorporated against the States then I think it does violate it. To me, it is a clear cut infringement.

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.

 

[evansvillethompsongunner]

There is no such thing as a reasonable restriction on the Second Amendment.
What part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" do you not get?

 

[mrjarrell]

There is no such thing as a reasonable restriction on the Second Amendment.
What part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" do you not get?

Scalia doesn't believe in that. Nor do most of his GOP buddies.

 

[Prometheus]

You (and those who gave you that idea) are saying the Second Amendment doesn't mean anything until some black robed tyrants say it does because the 14th amendment was ratified nearly 100 years after the 2nd amendment and somehow has more force of law than what was written 100 years prior to then?

Think about how asinine that idea is.


Read the constitution, the FORCE OF LAW is already in there to enforce the 2nd amendment. Not some idiotic notion of the 14th amendment legitimizing the 2a.

 

[INGunGuy]

New ruling on the First Amendment...

The freedom of speech is being restricted so one doesnt upset, minorities, sex's, religions, anyone else that feels they need to be protected from being offended by any type of speech. Since state Supreme Courts can ignore the Constitution, and since the Supreme Court of the United States is such a joke anymore, so what if the First is incorporated. Let the courts make laws that you cant say a racially charged joke, or preach on whatever religion you wish.

See, states CAN NOT just dictate at will, what they will and wont abide by when dealing with constitutional issues, the last time I checked, Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to say crap that makes you look like a total fool to everyone else is PROTECTED. Kind of like the Second, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED... Hmmm... seems pretty cut and dry to me. And as for anyone who wants to buck the system, I say go for it. We need test criminal cases that go all the way to the Supreme Court.

What about Rosa Parks, she refused to move to the back of the bus when demanded because she was black. Well she was arrested for what? Probably nothing more than disturbing the peace, but with that one act of civil disobedience the whole equal rights movement went into high gear.

Oh well I will stop ranting...

INGunGuy

 

[esigler]

Its as stupid as a seat belt to me! Big brother looking to control me!

 

[jsgolfman]

Until the time when (if? ) the 2A is incorporated to the states, Massachusetts has every right in the world to ignore it. While I tend to agree that Mass. legislators and judges list slightly to port, as long as the gun lock law is deemed to be kosher with the Mass. state constitution there's no reason to challenge it in the courts just yet.

There's the rub, I actually googled the Mass state constitution, hence my comment. I couldn't find anything at all about this claimed right they spoke of.

 

[singlesix]

New ruling on the First Amendment...

The freedom of speech is being restricted so one doesnt upset, minorities, sex's, religions, anyone else that feels they need to be protected from being offended by any type of speech. Since state Supreme Courts can ignore the Constitution, and since the Supreme Court of the United States is such a joke anymore, so what if the First is incorporated. Let the courts make laws that you cant say a racially charged joke, or preach on whatever religion you wish.

See, states CAN NOT just dictate at will, what they will and wont abide by when dealing with constitutional issues, the last time I checked, Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to say crap that makes you look like a total fool to everyone else is PROTECTED. Kind of like the Second, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED... Hmmm... seems pretty cut and dry to me. And as for anyone who wants to buck the system, I say go for it. We need test criminal cases that go all the way to the Supreme Court.

What about Rosa Parks, she refused to move to the back of the bus when demanded because she was black. Well she was arrested for what? Probably nothing more than disturbing the peace, but with that one act of civil disobedience the whole equal rights movement went into high gear.

Oh well I will stop ranting...

INGunGuy

There are limits on Free Speech. Standard example of yelling fire in a crowded bar. Rosa Park case doesn't apply here. She was denied her rights base on color.

 

[BloodEclipse]

"While maintaining a citizen's ability to possess firearms for the purpose of self defense is important, it is just as imperative to properly secure those firearms to prevent tragedies, especially as it relates to young people, as was the case here," Leone said.

The 18-year-old showed police where his father kept other guns,

"It says that the right to have a gun in your home comes with a responsibility, such as keeping guns away from children," Vice said.

Can someone define child here for me?
Then explain how any of these statements make any sense.
Can a LEO search your house by asking a child to let him look around?
This story is so full of FAIL.

 

[kludge]

Did I miss something, or when the Massechusettes ratified the Constitution, did they mark out the line that says it's the sumpreme law of the land?

Bad jusrisprudence (I think this one - states not bound by the BoR - dates back to the 1830's) takes a long time to reverse.

They thought they did it when they ratified the 14th. But the Justices "undid" again just a soon as they could.

Here we are over two centuries later and the states think the Constitution, which they ratified, which they had to accept as the supreme law of the land to gain statehood, does not apply to them?

I guess I'm not surprised though, because our federal legislators don't think it applies to them either.

The Justices are still loathe to vacate Slaughter-House. 140 years is no reason to keep bad law.

 

[irishfan]

I believe more than Massachusetts has the law requiring firearms to be locked up. I don't see how the ruling violates the SCOTUS ruling either.