Have you ever read this before?

Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
852
Likes
143
Location
In god foresaken mAssachusetts
Many here are familiar with the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution, but how many have read the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts?

I came across it today while I was searching for information on MA state militias. There actually is a state militia, made up of volunteers who train with the Natl. Guard. I didn't know that either until I started my research today, but that's the subject of another thread which I will post shortly for those interested in joining a militia..

I'm no Constitutional scholar, but as I was reading the state Constitution it occurred to me the all these anti-gun laws as well as the AG's consumer "protection" bans on certain firearms and components might just be in violation of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' Constitution and thus are illegal and should be rescinded.

Again, I'm no Constitutional scholar so I open this up for discussion, particularly the parts highlighted. What say everyone?

ETA: I have to post this in two parts because apparently, a post is limited to 15000 characters and this one is 17808 characters. sheesh! [rolleyes]







CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS.
Seal of the Commonwealth


PREAMBLE.

The end of the institution, maintenance, and administration of government, is to secure the existence of the body politic, to protect it, and to furnish the individuals who compose it with the power of enjoying in safety and tranquility their natural rights, and the blessings of life: and whenever these great objects are not obtained, the people have a right to alter the government, and to take measures necessary for their safety, prosperity and happiness.

The body politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals: it is a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good. It is the duty of the people, therefore, in framing a constitution of government, to provide for an equitable mode of making laws, as well as for an impartial interpretation, and a faithful execution of them; that every man may, at all times, find his security in them.

We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the great Legislator of the universe, in affording us, in the course of His providence, an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without fraud, violence or surprise, of entering into an original, explicit, and solemn compact with each other; and of forming a new constitution of civil government, for ourselves and posterity; and devoutly imploring His direction in so interesting a design, do agree upon, ordain and establish the following Declaration of Rights, and Frame of Government, as the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

PART THE FIRST
A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants
of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.


Article I. 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. [Annulled by Amendments, Art. CVI.]

Article II. It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession or sentiments; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship. [See Amendments, Arts. XLVI and XLVIII.]

Article III. [As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.

And the people of this commonwealth have also a right to, and do, invest their legislature with authority to enjoin upon all the subjects an attendance upon the instructions of the public teachers aforesaid, at stated times and seasons, if there be any on whose instructions they can conscientiously and conveniently attend.

Provided, notwithstanding, that the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, shall, at all times, have the exclusive right of electing their public teachers, and of contracting with them for their support and maintenance.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
852
Likes
143
Location
In god foresaken mAssachusetts
And all moneys paid by the subject to the support of public worship, and of the public teachers aforesaid, shall, if he require it, be uniformly applied to the support of the public teacher or teachers of his own religious sect or denomination, provided there be any on whose instructions he attends; otherwise it may be paid towards the support of the teacher or teachers of the parish or precinct in which the said moneys are raised.

Any every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.] [Art. XI of the Amendments substituted for this].

Article IV. The people of this commonwealth have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves, as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not, or may not hereafter, be by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in Congress assembled.

Article V. All power residing originally in the people, and being derived from them, the several magistrates and officers of government, vested with authority, whether legislative, executive, or judicial, are their substitutes and agents, and are at all times accountable to them.

Article VI. No man, nor corporation, or association of men, have any other title to obtain advantages, or particular and exclusive privileges, distinct from those of the community, than what arises from the consideration of services rendered to the public; and this title being in nature neither hereditary, nor transmissible to children, or descendants, or relations by blood, the idea of a man born a magistrate, lawgiver, or judge, is absurd and unnatural.

Article VII. Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men: Therefore the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity and happiness require it.

Article VIII. In order to prevent those, who are vested with authority, from becoming oppressors, the people have a right, at such periods and in such manner as they shall establish by their frame of government, to cause their public officers to return to private life; and to fill up vacant places by certain and regular elections and appointments.

Article IX. All elections ought to be free; and all the inhabitants of this commonwealth, having such qualifications as they shall establish by their frame of government, have an equal right to elect officers, and to be elected, for public employments. [See Amendments, Arts. XLV and XLVIII, The Initiative, sec. 2.] [For compulsory voting, see Amendments, Art. LXI.] [For use of voting machines at elections, see Amendments, Art. XXXVIII.] [For absent voting, see Amendments, Art. LXXVI.]

Article X. Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty and property, according to standing laws. He is obliged, consequently, to contribute his share to the expense of this protection; to give his personal service, or an equivalent, when necessary: but no part of the property of any individual can, with justice, be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people. In fine, the people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent. And whenever the public exigencies require that the property of any individual should be appropriated to public uses, he shall receive a reasonable compensation therefor. [See Amendments, Arts. XXXIX, XLIII, XLVII, XLVIII, The Initiative, II, sec. 2, XLIX, L, LI and XCVII.]

Article XI. Every subject of the commonwealth ought to find a certain remedy, by having recourse to the laws, for all injuries or wrongs which he may receive in his person, property, or character. He ought to obtain right and justice freely, and without being obliged to purchase it; completely, and without any denial; promptly, and without delay; conformably to the laws.

Article XII. No subject shall be held to answer for any crimes or offence, until the same is fully and plainly, substantially and formally, described to him; or be compelled to accuse, or furnish evidence against himself. And every subject shall have a right to produce all proofs, that may be favorable to him; to meet the witnesses against him face to face, and to be fully heard in his defence by himself, or his council at his election. And no subject shall be arrested, imprisoned, despoiled, or deprived of his property, immunities, or privileges, put out of the protection of the law, exiled, or deprived of his life, liberty, or estate, but by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the land.

And the legislature shall not make any law, that shall subject any person to a capital or infamous punishment, excepting for the government of the army and navy, without trial by jury. [See Amendments, Art. XLVIII, The Initiative, II, sec. 2.]

Article XIII. In criminal prosecutions, the verification of facts in the vicinity where they happen, is one of the greatest securities of the life, liberty, and property of the citizen.

Article XIV. Every subject has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches, and seizures, of his person, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions. All warrants, therefore, are contrary to this right, if the cause or foundation of them be not previously supported by oath or affirmation; and if the order in the warrant to a civil officer, to make search in suspected places, or to arrest one or more suspected persons, or to seize their property, be not accompanied with a special designation of the persons or objects of search, arrest, or seizure: and no warrant ought to be issued but in cases, and with the formalities prescribed by the laws. [See Amendments, Art. XLVIII, The Initiative, II, sec. 2].

Article XV. In all controversies concerning property, and in all suits between two or more persons, except in cases in which it has heretofore been otherways used and practiced, the parties have a right to a trial by jury; and this method of procedure shall be held sacred, unless, in causes arising on the high seas, and such as relate to mariners' wages, the legislature shall hereafter find it necessary to alter it. [See Amendments, Art. XLVIII, The Initiative, II, sec. 2].

Article XVI. [The liberty of the press is essential to the security of freedom in a state: it ought not, therefore, to be restrained in this commonwealth.] [See Amendments, Art. XLVIII, The Initiative, II, sec. 2.] [Annulled and superseded by Amendments, Art. LXXVII.

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.

Article XVIII. A frequent recurrence to the fundamental principles of the constitution, and a constant adherence to those of piety, justice, moderation, temperance, industry, and frugality, are absolutely necessary to preserve the advantages of liberty, and to maintain a free government. The people ought, consequently, to have a particular attention to all those principles, in the choice of their officers and representatives: and they have a right to require of their lawgivers and magistrates, an exact and constant observance of them, in the formation and execution of the laws necessary for the good administration of the commonwealth.

Article XIX. The people have a right, in an orderly and peaceable manner, to assemble to consult upon the common good; give instructions to their representatives, and to request of the legislative body, by the way of addresses, petitions, or remonstrances, redress of the wrongs done them, and of the grievances they suffer. [See Amendments, Art. XLVIII, The Initiative, II, sec. 2.]

Article XX. The power of suspending the laws, or the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature, or by authority derived from it, to be exercised in such particular cases only as the legislature shall expressly provide for. [See Amendments, Arts. XLVIII, I, Definition and LXXXIX.]

Article XXI. The freedom of deliberation, speech and debate, in either house of the legislature, is so essential to the rights of the people, that it cannot be the foundation of any accusation or prosecution, action or complaint, in any other court or place whatsoever. [See Amendments, Art. XLVIII, The Initiative, II, sec. 2.]

Article XXII. The legislature ought frequently to assemble for the redress of grievances, for correcting, strengthening and confirming the laws, and for making new laws, as the common good may require.

Article XXIII. No subsidy, charge, tax, impost, or duties, ought to be established, fixed, laid, or levied, under any pretext whatsoever, without the consent of the people or their representatives in the legislature.

Article XXIV. Laws made to punish for actions done before the existence of such laws, and which have not been declared crimes by preceding laws, are unjust, oppressive, and inconsistent with the fundamental principles of a free government.

Article XXV. No subject ought, in any case, or in any time, to be declared guilty of treason or felony by the legislature.


Article XXVI. No magistrate or court of law, shall demand excessive bail or sureties, impose excessive fines, or inflict cruel or unusual punishments. [See Amendments, Art. XLVIII, The Initiative, II, sec. 2, and CXVI.]

Article XXVII. In time of peace, no soldier ought to be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner; and in time of war, such quarters ought not to be made but by the civil magistrate, in a manner ordained by the legislature.

Article XVIII. No person can in any case be subject to law-martial, or to any penalties or pains, by virtue of that law, except those employed in the army or navy, and except the militia in actual service, but by authority of the legislature. [See Amendments, Art. XLVIII, The Initiative, II, sec. 2.]

Article XXIX. It is essential to the preservation of the rights of every individual, his life, liberty, property, and character, that there be an impartial interpretation of the laws, and administration of justice. It is the right of every citizen to be tried by judges as free, impartial and independent as the lot of humanity will admit. It is, therefore, not only the best policy, but for the security of the rights of the people, and of every citizen, that the judges of the supreme judicial court should hold their offices as long as they behave themselves well; and that they should have honorable salaries ascertained and established by standing laws. [See Amendments, Arts. XLVIII, The Initiative, II, sec. 2, and The Referendum, III, sec. 2, LXVIII and XCVIII.]

Article XXX. In the government of this commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them: the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them: the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men.
PART THE SECOND
The Frame of Government.

The people, inhabiting the territory formerly called the Province of Massachusetts Bay, do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other, to form themselves into a free, sovereign, and independent body politic, or state by the name of "THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS"
 

cekim

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
29,885
Likes
4,689
Location
Clowns->Here<-Jokers
Sadly the individual "right to bear arms" in MA was soundly defeated by the courts in the 70's...

Don't recall the case, but it has been tested and failed... History was re-written and the historical reality tossed aside...

Our courts have failed us in this state...
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
852
Likes
143
Location
In god foresaken mAssachusetts
Sadly the individual "right to bear arms" in MA was soundly defeated by the courts in the 70's...

Don't recall the case, but it has been tested and failed... History was re-written and the historical reality tossed aside...

Our courts have failed us in this state...


I wish you could remember. I'm curious as to what judicial level it was taken and by whom. [hmmm]
 

cekim

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
29,885
Likes
4,689
Location
Clowns->Here<-Jokers
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
852
Likes
143
Location
In god foresaken mAssachusetts
Thanks, Cekim. I just found the amendment which annulled Article 1 of the original Constitution. With the exception of adding the race, creed, color, sex, and national origin clause, it pretty much reads the same:


Article CVI. Article I of Part the First of the Constitution is hereby annulled and the following is adopted:-

All people 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. Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed or national origin.


.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
852
Likes
143
Location
In god foresaken mAssachusetts
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/07/24/david-kopel/what-did-they-mean-in-massachusetts/

"In 1976, the Massachusetts court rejected a criminal’s challenge to the state law restricting the possession of sawed-off shotguns. The court declared that the state constitutional arms right was only for militiamen, and that it no longer existed for any practical purpose, since the National Guard now had its own guns."


This is very interesting, because the state does have a state militia, exempt from the Federal Government. I guess we're all going to have to join the state militia then. [smile]


ETA: And since the state has its own militia. I'm wondering if that ruling can't be challenged.
 
Rating - 100%
14   0   0
Joined
Jun 27, 2009
Messages
10,713
Likes
4,584
Location
Live Free or Die
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/07/24/david-kopel/what-did-they-mean-in-massachusetts/

"In 1976, the Massachusetts court rejected a criminal’s challenge to the state law restricting the possession of sawed-off shotguns. The court declared that the state constitutional arms right was only for militiamen, and that it no longer existed for any practical purpose, since the National Guard now had its own guns."

That's pretty messed up considering there was very little in those articles about militia, hell article 1 says for defense. Some judge turned their back on the state constitution because they didn't believe it applied anymore? Stuff like that worries me on the national scale *scared look*
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
852
Likes
143
Location
In god foresaken mAssachusetts
Why do you think I'm still awake? I lay in bed in this stupid heat and my mind worries about crap like this, thinking about what I can do to change it and how I can play my part.
r

What state do you live in? I'm going to post a new thread on state militias. I'll put a link in there to check if one exists for your state.

The other thing you could do is join OathKeepers

www.oathkeepers.org
 

jcr

Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jul 19, 2007
Messages
1,250
Likes
67
Location
Reading, MA
The 1976 case is Commonwealth v. Davis 369 Mass. 886, 343 N.E.2nd 847 (1976).

I put several documents from this case on a web page, quite some time ago:
Comm v. Davis documents

As is so often the situation, the challenge under the State Constitution was made by an unsypathetic drug dealer. He initially filed his appeal, pro se. The lawyer that had represented him at the original trial, did get involved, but I think that the brief was written by the defendant.

The SJC took the case directly, because it seems that they wanted to go on record as seeing no Constitutional problem with an initiative petition to ban handguns that was on the ballot in November 1976.

The vote on that petition failed and surprised the gun grabbers. The organization that was formed to fight the petition became G.O.A.L.
 

jcr

Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jul 19, 2007
Messages
1,250
Likes
67
Location
Reading, MA
To summarize, Comm v. Davis says that there is no right to keep and bear arms. The MA Declaration of Rights Article 17 doesn't mean what it says because it has magic words "common defense" in it which means it applies only to the government, not individuals.

If the federal Heller decision gets more traction, it'd be sweet if a challenge to some of the MA gun laws was made under Article 106 (the replacement for Article 1, which now includes "persons" not just "men".)

How can you have a right to "defend life" if the government can take away the best means for doing so.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
852
Likes
143
Location
In god foresaken mAssachusetts
JCR,

Thank you for the link. I am certainly not a lawyer, and it can be argued that my opinion is swayed by my personal desire to keep and bear arms, but it seems to me, having read the decision, that the court took one hell of a "liberty" in interpreting the meaning of Art 17.

And why did they make a unilateral decision to hear it before it was ever petitioned to their court?

Personal opinions (and they are only my opinions) in blue:

Article 17 of our Declaration of Rights declares: "The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. It would seem to me that "common" defense means "people" defense. 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."

The meaning of such provisions is to be gathered from their history which is reasonably well known and need not be reviewed here in detail. See Feller & Gotting, The Second Amendment: A Second Look, 61 Nw. U.L. Rev. 46 (1966); Levin, The Right to Bear Arms: The Development of the American Experience, 48 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 148 (1971). The colonists distrusted standing armies and preferred to look to a militia - "civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion" [2] - for protection. It is too bad that the court chose to ignore the history behind the "meaning of such provisions" because they would have been forced to admit that our Founding Fathers distrusted GOVERNMENT, and wanted to ensure freedom and liberty to future generations by giving them the means to defend themselves should a tyrannical government attempt to take power. It would have been nice if the SJC actually knew our history rather than make a ruling based on their ignorance of our history. Makes me wonder if any of them ever read the Bill of Rights, the US Constitution or the Federalist Papers.

Article 17 expresses the distrust in its second sentence. It refers to the preference in the first: the declared right to keep and bear arms is that of the people, the aggregate of citizens; the right is related to the common defense; and that in turn points to service in a broadly based, organized militia. Given that their basic premise was totally wrong, it always follows that the conclusion will be wrong as well.

Provisions like art. 17 were not directed to guaranteeing individual ownership or possession of weapons. See Salina v. Blaksley, 72 Kan. 230, 231-232 (1905); Burton v. Sills, 53 N.J. 86, 96-97 (1968). This generalization is perhaps subject to a qualification: Militiamen customarily furnished their own equipment and indeed might be under legal obligation to do so. See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 179-181 (1939); State v. Dawson, 272 N.C. 535, 546 (1968). A law forbidding the keeping by individuals of arms that were used in the militia service might then have interfered with the effectiveness of the militia and thus offended the art. 17 right. But that situation no longer exists; our militia, of which the backbone is the National Guard, is now equipped and supported by public funds. Again, just my opinion, but they seem to be in error, because a state sanctioned militia existed back then and it still exists today

See, e.g., G. L. c. 33, sec. 101 (payment by Commonwealth for clothing and equipment of units of its military forces). Moreover, the statute at bar is part of a large regulatory scheme to promote the public safety, [3] and there is nothing to suggest that, even in early times, due regulation of possession or carrying of firearms, short of some sweeping prohibition, would have been thought to be an improper curtailment of individual liberty or to undercut the militia system. Wow. These guys sure took liberties in MISinterpreting the intentions of our Founding Fathers. Were they that stupid or were they being deliberately obtuse? [rolleyes]

[4] Very generally it has been held that such regulation is compatible with State constitutional provisions on the subject of the right to bear arms. [5] Our own case of Commonwealth v. Murphy, 166 Mass. 171 (1896), is to that effect. [6] It may be noted that some of the State constitutional provisions can be distinguished from our own because they speak of arms for self-defense as well as for defense of the State; even so, a regulatory power is not necessarily excluded. See People v. Brown, 253 Mich. 537, 538, 540 (1931); People v. McFadden, 31 Mich. App. 512, 515-516 (1971); State v. Robinson, 217 Ore. 612, 615, 619 (1959). [7]......"


"......The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States declares: "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." This was adopted to quiet the fears of those who thought that the Congressional powers under article I, sec. 8, clauses 15 and 16, with regard to the State militias [8] might have the effect of enervating or destroying those forces. The amendment is to be read as an assurance that the national government shall not so reduce the militias.
What a crock!

See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939); Feller & Gotting, supra at 62; Levin, supra at 159. Decisions of the courts have not retreated from the view that the amendment inhibits only the national government, not the States. See Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 538 (1894); Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 264 (1886); United States v. Cruickshank[sic], 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875). So the amendment is irrelevant to the present case. The chances appear remote that this amendment will ultimately be read to control the States, for unlike some other provisions of the Bill of Rights, this is not directed to guaranteeing the rights of individuals, but rather, as we have said, to assuring some freedom of State forces from national interference. How the hell did these guys end up on the SJC? Oh wait. This is Massachusetts and it's all about pay-offs and political appointments to plum positions. Intelligence is not a prerequisite, only nepotism and a sizable campaign contribution need matter.


This ruling totally blows. [angry]
 
Last edited:
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
852
Likes
143
Location
In god foresaken mAssachusetts
Revisionist history on this issue has been with us since the 60's...

As they used to say in Russia:

"The past is getting increasingly difficult to predict..."

Cekim.

Call me crazy but their omission of the "meaning of such provisions... gathered from history which is reasonably well known and need not be reviewed here in detail" was done deliberately. Had they included that history, they would have been forced to rule differently, and that was not their intent. Makes you wonder why they were so eager to hear this case when it hadn't even been brought to them yet. I mean, is that normal?

They didn't even try to revise our history, they ignored it completely!
 

cekim

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
29,885
Likes
4,689
Location
Clowns->Here<-Jokers
Had they included that history, they would have been forced to rule differently, and that was not their intent. Makes you wonder why they were so eager to hear this case when it hadn't even been brought to them yet. I mean, is that normal?

They didn't even try to revise our history, they ignored it completely!
The bottom line with such issues is always the same...

You can ascribe all the evil and conspiracy you like to "they" (those in government - the ruling elite), but the real problem isn't that they are corrupt, evil, revisionist, sneaky, dishonest, etc...

It should be presumed that they are... It is a given - the founders understood this about government...

The trouble comes when the electorate is unwilling or unable to limit their power and see through their lies... That's where the real tragedy of this nation's fall comes in - education...

Primary, secondary and collegiate education has been infiltrated over the years by socialist ideologies - doesn't even have to be "organized", but it is so pervasive that it is nearly universal...

Subtleties of omission over decades have "educated" the American public to believe things about the founding documents of this nation and state which defy logic and reason. Even a cursory understanding of their intent, their context (the time and circumstances of their writing), makes a mockery of their modern interpretation...

That's where the real fight for this nation lies - in getting the public at large to understand and see the lies they are fed from every angle... Global warming, national emergencies, disarmament, socialism in general...

We have to understand that the lies will come. It is up to the public to recognize them for that they are and it will be an uphill battle...

I've noticed an uptick in what I call "anti-anti-communism"... Discussion in the liberal media about the "vestiges" of the cold war in our society. Discussed as "quaint" and "backward" remnants of the cold war... They are making the case for communism and socialism, by systemically removing the stigmas that were in place during the cold war. Removing the symbols that reminded people of the true nature of socialism as a pre-cursor to raising socialism from vilified ideology to accepted, logical and desirable...

The only way to combat this scourge is to understand that your enemy is not really the idiots in government, but your fellow voters and children (if you don't counter the socialist message in public schools).

That's where we need to focus our energies... In true "public education"... Reminding people at every turn of the body count behind socialism.

Reminding them of the inherent violence in wealth redistribution, as it uses the force of government to steal from one to give to another...
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
852
Likes
143
Location
In god foresaken mAssachusetts
You speak to the choir. [wink] I climbed on my soap box so many years ago that it has become a permanent appendage.

There was a time when I opposed home schooling but I no longer do. Be that as it may, most households have both parents working or the household is run by a single parent who must work to support the family. Their children have to attend school outside of the home.

However, that does not preclude parents from teaching their children about our history, and rather than let the kids fry their brains watching TV, updating their facebooks or playing their gameboys at night, parents can use that time to read to their children about our nation's history, teach them about our revolutionary Founding Fathers and introduce them to the most magnificent document ever conceived by man, the US Constitution.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 13, 2006
Messages
56
Likes
0
Disregarding the courts historical ignorance (or intentional disregard of same) I believe that the opinion is also faulty in that it doesn't take into account the unorganized militia as decribed in the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 311).
 

jcr

Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jul 19, 2007
Messages
1,250
Likes
67
Location
Reading, MA
There is no question but that Comm v. Davis is a very weakly resasoned opinion. If written for an undergraduate, Pre-Law class it deserves a grade of 'D' (but then my standards for undergraduates are not current).

There are several clues that demonstrate that they decided what the conclusion was first, and then searched for citations that supported their result.

The best one is where they cite the U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876) case. You'll notice that I've inserted a "[sic]" because they misspelled the case name. Off hand, you night think this inconsequential, but here it is not. It turns out that for years, Handgun Control, Inc, supplied a "Fact Sheet" that explained their view of the Second Amendment. That fact sheet had the same misspelling as our SJC.

To emphasize the point, the SJC used HCI's fact sheet to cite federal law -- rather than read the case themselves.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 13, 2006
Messages
56
Likes
0
The best one is where they cite the U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876) case. You'll notice that I've inserted a "[sic]" because they misspelled the case name. Off hand, you night think this inconsequential, but here it is not. It turns out that for years, Handgun Control, Inc, supplied a "Fact Sheet" that explained their view of the Second Amendment. That fact sheet had the same misspelling as our SJC.

Must be as good an interpreatation by HCI as their read on US v. Miller. [thinking]
 

jcr

Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jul 19, 2007
Messages
1,250
Likes
67
Location
Reading, MA
Comm v. Davis said:
...need not be reviewed here in detail. See Feller & Gotting, The Second Amendment: A Second Look, 61 Nw. U.L. Rev. 46 (1966); Levin, The Right to Bear Arms: The Development of the American Experience, 48 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 148 (1971).

True, they did not need to review in detail, but honesty requires citations to both sides of the issue.

"Feller" is a completely forgettable law review article. About all I remember about it was how disappointed I was when I looked it up. What I recall is that it was just mostly a listing of gun law in the states. There must be more, but really, my response was, "Why did they include this, did they need filler?"

"Levin" is worth reading. I think it is at guncite.com and/or wherever the old "Second Amendment Law Library' webset got archieved. There is no question that Levin want the near abolition of gun ownership, and his paper gleaned support for that position with multiple biased readings of history. Read it for an understanding of the flimsy underpinnings of all anti-gun law scholarship.

The SJC's conclusions come straight out of the conclusions of the Levin article.

I must add that 1976 was before there were many scholarly papers published about the Second Amendment. for the first 150 years of this country, everyone knew what the Second Amemdment meant, and there were no federal laws restricting it. When the NFA34 was passed, it did seem "reasonable" what with the "desperados" (word was actually used in the government's brief in US v. Miller) as portrayed by the media in the 1930s.

For the next 30 years to the 1960s people still understood the second amendment, and there was no further encroachment by Congress. As the 1960s progressed, blaming guns became popular in the media, and Congress started submitting Bills for federal gun control -- resulting in GCA68.

It was this that initiated the beginings of scholarship in law reviews on the Second Amendment. There were a few by 1976 (I have a list, somewhere) that would contradict "Feller" and "Levin", but nowhere near the number that started in the 1980s (e.g. Levinson, "Embarrassing Second Amendment") and lead to what is called the "Standard Model".
 

cekim

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
29,885
Likes
4,689
Location
Clowns->Here<-Jokers
For the next 30 years to the 1960s people still understood the second amendment, and there was no further encroachment by Congress. As the 1960s progressed, blaming guns became popular in the media, and Congress started submitting Bills for federal gun control -- resulting in GCA68.
Note also that NFA34 itself recognized the lack of authority to "ban" things and instead relied on the tried and true back-door of taxation to influence behavior...

Congress' interpretation of "shall not be infringed" has long lacked any pretense of including "shall not be onerously taxed to the point of effectively infringing"...
 
Last edited:
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
663
Likes
8
Location
MANNING SC
mass consti

there also is more on the militia in the state constitution.I t detaild the equipment you must have,did that disappear.also Is not that the SC that was
led by a woman and had couple more.it was so corrupt then.they were activist of the worst kind.one problem is you need much money to fight and gun owners are not known to spend money on court cases.check out heller.it was financed by a man with money.look thru the state constitution and you will find more on fire arms rights.you with children should know what the schools are teaching.and what is in the books.many schools had rifle clubs in them and ranges.now no school remembers that.my school does not know of it and we were national champions.
THE NATIONAL GUARD IS A COMPONENT OF THE ARMY RESERVE,ARMED BY THE GOV AND PAID BY THE GOV.AND HAS BEEN SINCE 1934.THE ng WAS STARTED IN 1906,NOT IN 1790S.THE TROOPS FOR THE MOSR PART IN THE CIVIL WAR WERE VOLUNTEER UNITS."MASS 54th VOLUNTER REGIMENT" ect.
I learned this in school.and civics not social studies.I did not need to be taught how to put one on.because I had respect for girls and would not touch them.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
99
Likes
3
Just prove that a single citizen is common.

I would think that if it can proved that a single citizen is considered common then it could also be said since a single citizen is common that said citizen should have the right to keep and bear arms in the common (or personal) defense. Would an easier way to prove that be to sue in a civil court with the intent of proving that if a common citizen had arms at the time of a crime they would have had a better chance for defense of life and property.

It makes logical sense to me to present the argument in such a way as to say that arms could be Mace/Pepper spray, batons, knives and/or firearms. Expecting that a person would need to defend themselves from one or more foes with these items it would be prudent to allow a law abiding citizen to own and carry these items as a criminal is unconcerned with the application of the law to their activities.
 
Top Bottom