I appreciate you observations, and after chatting with some advisors on the matter and having them spend the weekend arguing the various issues, and logic in the case, on this last Monday I file an amendment to the case, made it stronger, and more directly.
There are something like 120 defendants, a dozen of so are companies or government agencies, but most importantly, I am asking the Federal Government to force the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to obey the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States , and to force them to obey the U.S. Supreme COurt ruling and opinions.
If anybody is interested in helping out with donation to help defray the costs of my filing suit, or the costs of getting the case rolling along they can donate to me via PayPal (any donations will be greatly appreciated), using the my E-mail address of:
[email protected] (hint, I can use all the help I can get on this matter, so please feel free to do what you can, it will be greatly appreciated).
I filed the case "pro se" which is to mean that I wrote it for the most part on my own, with some oversight and guidance by an attorney I respect, and I handled getting it filed on my own, and I am handling getting the summons served, and getting the case ruling on my own. I am interested in working with a Civil RIghts attorney in the Boston area who might be interested in representing me on the case (hint, hint, hint), and woudl appreciate any introductions of recommendation to same.
This is not a much a "gun right" case as it is one of "Massachusetts Must Obey the Constitution and the Bill of Rights", racketeering, and a civil rights case more then anything else.
http://www.tscm.com/Amended1983Complaint[v10.0c-Final] copy.pdf
11-CV-11073-NMG
AMENDED COMPLAINT
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
COMPLAINT
INTRODUCTION
1. This action for deprivation of civil rights under color of law challenges various Massachusetts statutes in regard to the keeping and, or of bearing arms to the extent that they prohibit otherwise qualified private citizens from keeping or carrying arms for the purpose of self-defense. Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, actual damages, and punitive damages, and attorney’s fees and costs.
2. Second Amendment Rights are no different then First Amendment Rights, nor the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, or 14th Amendments, nor for that matter any other part of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
3. The government cannot exercise prior restrain in either matters of the First Amendment, nor in matters of the Second Amendment. The government may not prohibit the possession of a high volume printing press any more then they may prohibit a high capacity magazine, high capacity feeding device, high capacity firearm or assault weapon.
4. A high volume printing press in and of itself is no more or less dangerous than a high capacity firearm or a high capacity firearm magazine. In both cases a citizen is responsible or the use or misuse of either, but the government may not impose prior restraint on either.
5. A printing press, arms of various sorts, and holy books are all equally protected under the Bill of Rights. Not the States, nor the Federal Government may outlaw a religion, may not mandate a certain thickness or page count of the Holy Bible, nor the scripting of prayers by the faithful, define the size of a Prayer Rule, mandate the Mass be spoken in High Latin or English, nor impose the desires of the Government in regards to religion or political choices, nor may they impose undue control or restraint on the keeping and bearing of arms.
6. All firearms utilized by law enforcement for individual defense of the officer or for entering homes, buildings, or vehicles are suitable examples that these same or similar weapons are well suited for defense of the home.
7. The firearm itself, the configuration of the magazines, of feeding devices, the ammunition used, and the manner it which it is deployed are all evidence that a weapon is well suited for home defense.
8. By their very design, firearms are dangerous, they are supposed to be dangerous, and they are supposed to be deadly, any fool knows this. People train to become proficient with arms in order to use them in a dangerous and controlled manner, and in some cases a deadly manner. Any assertions that a particular modern arm is more or less dangerous then another is sheer and utter lunacy.
9. The “dangerousness” of any particular firearm lies in the intent of the hands that wields it, and if those hands have evil intentions and they lack access to one type of arms then they will turn to other weapons and arms that are equally or more dangerous than firearms.
10. A high capacity magazine or feeding device is protected under the 2nd Amendment, the government may not dictate any aspect of the arms that a person may choose for defense, not the feeding device or magazine, nor the type of ammunition used. The U.S. Supreme Court affirms this right, immunity, and privilege in both District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592 (2008), and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3026 (2010). decisions.
11. Any weapon used by a SWAT team for home or business entries and/or raid is strong evidence that the same weapon is particularly suited for home defense. Otherwise, logically, the SWAT Team would not be using such weapons.
12. Logically then, any and all firearms which a law enforcement officer would normally carry on a day to day basis anywhere in the country, or which is endorsed for, sold for, endorsed as, or in any way considered as a firearm suited for individual law enforcement officers to carry or use is prima facia evidence that it is suitable for home defense as it is generally accepted as safe. The same holds true of any firearm, magazine, feeding device, or ammunition in common use by law federal, state, and local law enforcement officers.
13. Under the equal protection clause of the Bill of Rights, the police are not entitled to any greater or lesser protection than that of the common law abiding citizen. Nor may any law abiding citizen be denied the ability to keep arms identical to, or similar to those carrier by the police. In effect, by application of the Equal Protections clause of the 14th Amendment the citizens of the United States and allowed to permit arms, up to and equally those issued to, carried by, authorized by, or used by members of law enforcement of the various states. Thus, if a police off ice permitted to carry a type of arm, then so are members of the public.
14. The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Heller and in McDonald allows the occupant of the home to determine which firearms are primarily useful for home defense, and does not allow the government to dictate which weapons be kept, or used in this regard. In fact, the law permits the use of not only a firearm, but actually that of any arms available to the person.
15. This weapon selection is highly personal, and can range from little more then a pointy stick, to an edged weapon, a bayonet, a sword or cutlass, or if they so choose a firearm of the sort they feel is most suitable.
16. Conversely, should a citizen feel strongly against the keeping, or the bearing of arms they are well within their rights not to possess or to carry same, but they may not impose their religious, philosophical, and social choices upon other citizens.
17. The state however, may not restrict the mere possession or “keeping” or arms, nor can the state restrict the “bearing of arms” by normal law abiding citizens, and at most may only control the manner in which they are carried with a minimum of interference or control.
18. At most the state may impose certain controls to keep arms out of the hands of convicted felons or those who are adjudged insane, but they may not otherwise control, license, or ban arms.
19. The Bill of Rights, and the interpretations and decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court does not permit the state to prohibit the possession of a Holy Bible, the Torah, or the Quran, or any other holy book which the state may not like, but may control the retail sale of such to a limited extent. Nevertheless, the State cannot control or license mere possession of said holy books.
20. There is no requirement under the law to obtain a license for any sort for a holy book of any religion or denomination, not a Bible, not a Sermon Book, not a Prayer Book, not a Psalm book, or a Crucifix, or prayer rug, not Statues, not candles, not high capacity church pews, not ornate prayer rugs, not pipe organs, not grand pianos, not banners, not standards, not religious iconography, not bells, not chalices, not fonts, not baptisms, not incense, not crosses, not religious symbols, not stained glass, not wafers, not hosts, not a hiram, not relics, not a Yarmulkah or Yarmulke, nor Chalice Paten, nor Communion Paten, nor Ciborium, nor Host Box, nor Missal, nor Chasuble, nor Albs, nor Altar Cloths, nor Purificator, nor Finger Towels, nor Bread Trays, nor Cup Trays, nor Bema, nor Shulcahn, nor NER TAMID, nor Corporals, nor Amices, nor Palls, nor Cincture, nor Oil Stock, nor Pyx, nor Menorah, nor Kiddush Cup, nor Vademecum, not head dresses, not a hijab, not vestments, nor Tallit or Tallis, nor choir robes.
21. Neither is any government permission or license, or ID card (which is a defacto license if it can be revoked) required for keeping Holy Bibles or other religion artifacts in ones home, or to bear them up or carry them in practice of ones chosen religion.
22. The Bill of Rights, and the interpretations and decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court does not permit the state to prohibit the possession of a modern printing press (or Holy Bible) which the state may not like, but may control the retail sale of such a press should it be overly dangerous to operate, or should the Holy Bible be printed of plastic explosive sheets. However, the State cannot control or license mere possession of said printing press (nor of the Holy Bible), nor for that matter arms.
23. There is no requirement under the law to obtain a license of any sort for a printing press ownership, not for a quill pen, not a bottle of ink, not a fountain pen, not a sheet of paper, nor an inkjet printer, or even a high capacity laser printer, nor high capacity word processor, nor even a super computer. Not type faces, not type, not metal plates, not inking pads, nor composing sticks, not type cases, nor other tools of the printing trade.
24. Neither is any government permission or license, or ID card (which is a defacto license if it can be revoked) required to keep arms in ones home, or to bear them up or carry them in defense of others, or even the State.
25. The Second Amendment “guarantee
the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592 (2008), and is “fully applicable against the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3026 (2010).
26. However, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts steadfastly refuses to update the statutes of Massachusetts to reflect either the District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago U.S. Supreme Court decisions. The Commonwealth continues to ignore both the Constitution of the United States, the Bill of Rights, and the decisions of the Supreme Court, to the level that the Commonwealth exhibits an attitude, and conducts legal matters related to firearm with utter disregard for the civil rights of the citizens, complete, willful arrogance in regards to the 2nd and 14th Amendments, and even bolder affront to the U.S. Supreme Court, and even the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, whereby the Commonwealth now chooses merely to ignore the ruling by this nations highest court.
27. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts further demonstrates their evil intentions by foisting a ruse of various licensing scheme that exists for no reason but to deprive law abiding citizens of defensive arms in their home or businesses.
28. As if this arrogance of the Commonwealth could not run more afoul of the U.S. Constitution; the Bill of Rights; the various rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court; and Massachusetts Constitution, Part The First, Article XVII, the Commonwealth continues to unlawfully and with ill intent forcibly and with deceit enter law abiding businesses, and homes of citizens who are qualified by law to possess arms, and to take those arms away by force and by deception in direct violation of Federal law, and they do so with the approval of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth, and with a approval of the District Attorneys, who then empanel Grand Juries, so that the Attorney General and District Attorneys are “making law” and trying to illegally force precedent, and misusing the Grand Jury system for political power and social controls, instead of obeying the law themselves. In some cases the police or the district attorneys will trick a Judge or Magistrate into issuing a search warrant or an arrest warrant, even when it is prohibited by law.
29. The Commonwealth encourages law enforcement officer to lie and to perjure himself or herself in order to gain arrest or search warrants, and to confect a gross deception on the court system. These law enforcement officer do this knowing they the District Attorneys nor the Attorney general will prosecute then, even when they are caught in this state sponsored deception.
30. Plaintiff seeks to establish that the recognition and incorporation of the Second Amendment – the right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation – renders the State’s present regulatory choice unconstitutional. Whatever the contours of a constitutional scheme might be, the Second Amendment renders a ban on the keeping and, or carrying or arms, or firearms impermissible.
[snip, removed defendant]
[snip, removed recitation of Defendants]
302. CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
303. The Second Amendment provides:
a. 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. - U.S. Const. Amndt. II.
304. The Second Amendment guarantees individuals a fundamental right to carry operable arms in all non-sensitive public places for the purpose of self-defense.
305. The Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the requirements of the Second Amendment against the States and their units of local government. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3042 (Jun. 28, 2010).
306. The States retain the ability to regulate the manner of carrying handguns within constitutional parameters; to prohibit the carrying of handguns in very specific, narrowly defined sensitive places; to prohibit the carrying of arms that are not within the scope of Second Amendment protection; and, to disqualify specific, particularly dangerous individuals (convicted criminals and the mentally insane) from carrying handguns.
307. The States may not completely ban the possession or carrying of handguns or other arms for self defense, may not deny individuals the right to carry handguns or other arms in non-sensitive places, may not deprive individuals of the right to carry handguns in an arbitrary and capricious manner, or impose regulations on the right to carry handguns or other arms, or impose any licensing scheme of any sort which that are inconsistent with the Second Amendment.
308. The States also may not restrict, or license the possession of firearms, pistols, rifles, revolvers, swords, foils, daggers, or other useful arms that the own selects as being most suited to their own defense, and which have been historically useful in defending the home or business.
309. The States are not allowed to dictate which weapons may or may not be kept within the home, only that certain overly unstable or overly dangerous firearms (by reason of a design flaw). For example, a large carriage-mounted cannon would be most unsuited for defense inside the home, but pretty much any modern shotgun, rifle, pistol, revolver, or edged or impact weapons or other weapons would be well suited to home, business, and property defense.
![[tinfoil]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/tinfoilhatsmile.gif "Tinfoil Hat [tinfoil]")
![[popcorn]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/043.gif "Popcorn [popcorn]")
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
![[grin]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/041.gif "Grin [grin]")
