• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Joined
Jun 12, 2006
Messages
3,961
Likes
89
Location
Brockton, MA
Feedback: 3 / 0 / 0
Slow day at work so dug this up...

Article XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

Now... I know that every gun grabbers argument about the US constitution is that it is for the militia, because of that pesky comma.

Funny part is... I see no comma here. I see a very direct sentence. "The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence."

So are they basically making laws that violate the state constitution or is it just me?
 
But... "The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence."

- the people = Every person in MA
- have the right = something that under the laws of the constitution, should not be taken away
- to keep and bear arms = to posess and carry firearms
- for the common defence = defence of all... one's self and defence of others.

Now, I know that you are correct... but I guess I just miss how the eff they got this - "IIRC, the MA courts have already ruled that it isn't an individual right." from this "The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence."
 
The same way folks say that "the right of people" in the 2nd Amendment means something different than it means in other Amendments.
 
Precisely. The "common defense" is NOT self-defense.

Agreed, but have a question:

While I realize that the issue of the 2nd Amendment granting an individual right has not been decided in court on a Federal level, if this did happen, would it have an effect on Mass rulings such as this?

IIRC, state's rights cannot be limited by the Feds, but isn't it true that civil rights can't be infringed by the states as well?
 
It sounds to me like what we need to do is reinstitute a citizens militia - so that "the people can keep and bear arms for their common defense".

A while back Jesse Cohen was on this forum looking for suggestions as to what could be done to gain back some gun rights in this state. And there have actually been some military thinkers that have come to the conclusion that the best defense against terrorism is citizen militias:

http://www.d-n-i.net/lind/lind_8_02_05.htm


Sounds to me like somebody needs to come up with a legal case that the US and Massachusetts goverments are not doing enough to defend us civilians since the 9/11 thing - so we need to defend ourselves. There is sound military reasoning behind this. What we probably need though is a Breslan type school attack here in this country to wake people up. Maybe that will do it. Look what happened in New Orleans when Katrina hit - all the National Guard guys from that area were deployed in Iraq. Lot of help they were when that happened.
 
Back
Top Bottom