Question about gun control, be gentle...

[Lank]

Is that you Martha?

What exactly do you think is stopping mass from outlawing firearms complete ly?

nope. just a little r republican.

And what is stopping MA from outlawing?

Insurrection.

Additionamacaly- I do believe private firearm ownership is part of the MA Constitution. I'll double check for ye

 

[Lank]

Just found this:

http://massguns.com/the-mass-constitution-firearms-licensing/

 

[noddaduma]

Btw even violent felons have the right to defend themselves. It is inalienable, meaning you cannot physically separate that right from them.

The death penalty is a punishment, but even then the dead man walking could resist to defend his life. He wouldn't get very far, but he could resist. Inalienable.

For contrast, consider prison: Prison strips the freedom of movement from those incarcerated. Therefore, freedom of movement is *not* an inalienable right.

 

[ranger4-7]

Btw even violent felons have the right to defend themselves. It is inalienable, meaning you cannot physically separate that right from them.

The death penalty is a punishment, but even then the dead man walking could resist to defend his life. He wouldn't get very far, but he could resist. Inalienable.

For contrast, consider prison: Prison strips the freedom of movement from those incarcerated. Therefore, freedom of movement is *not* an inalienable right.

A small quote from the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Freedom of movement is not an inalienable right? I disagree, as it seems to me to be an essential component of "Liberty" and the Pursuit of happiness". Prison certainly seems to infringe upon unalienable rights.

 

[Lank]

My earlier point is that I think probably most federal firearm laws are unconstitutional. The free people of states need to demand thier legislatures protect the RKBA in thier state constitutions and in state laws.

I have only recently was made familiar of the "incorporation" of the US constitution which (as I understand it) has protected the RKBA at all levels (local, state. fed), but also has left the possibility for the feds to have total supremacy over states and can overrule state powers in thier constitutions.

In other words, nothing is off limits for the feds now because of incorporation.

Can anyone weigh in?

 

[EC1]

nope. just a little r republican.

And what is stopping MA from outlawing?

Insurrection.

Additionamacaly- I do believe private firearm ownership is part of the MA Constitution. I'll double check for ye

From the Massachusetts Constitution:
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.

 

[PaulD]

I'm going to put this one on a short leash. Lets not drive away the noob.

IamPedroA , hang around and learn about the gun laws in your own state. If you get to the point of truly understanding them and their history, you'll understand why the typical reaction to your question is "none". Also, research the Miller v. US, Heller and MacDonald cases. Those should be informative.

Also, research crime stats and the effect gun control laws have had on them. IMO, you'll find no correlation whatsoever. At best, you'll find a decrease in suicide in areas with heavy gun control.

Go get your LTC and good luck not having an aneurysm when you start thinking about what you're going through for a Constitutionally protected right.

 

[dgrafton]

I disagree though with Battlesnail. If your a felon, no gun rights for you. If you were stupid enough to commit a felony you should pay the consequences.

Are you aware of what is considered a felony in this state? Here are a few examples.

1. Shooting a bb/paintball gun across inactive railroad tracks.

2. Defacing or tampering with a motor vehicle inspection sticker.

3. Being detoured through a school parking lot while carrying? You just committed a felony. Concealed is concealed, but you DID just commit the crime, whether it was marked as school property or not.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[noddaduma]

A small quote from the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Freedom of movement is not an inalienable right? I disagree, as it seems to me to be an essential component of "Liberty" and the Pursuit of happiness". Prison certainly seems to infringe upon unalienable rights.

Good point, although the Declaration is an ideal, and the Constitution / Bill of Rights must allow compromise to avoid the rights of one man infringing on the rights of another.

I mean, that's the whole crux of the problem now: as crowded as the country is, how can you go through life fully enjoying your fundamental (not inalienable) rights without infringing on the rights of others? I don't think you can, and the Founding Fathers would disagree that your fundamental rights deserve more protection than mine.

Worthwhile to read The Federalist Papers.

 

[MisterHappy]

Gun folks that say "What part of shall not be infringed don't you understand?!?!?!" are literally incomprehensible to a lot of non-gun-owners.

They don't understand that saying, "Felon" is not a uniform term (the Martha Stewart reference is a good example).

Do I think that a serial armed robber, released from prison, is going to immediately get a job raking leaves to better society? Probably not. But having a law that says, "No gun for a felon!" will not stop him from getting one, if he decides to go back to the armed robbery business.

If one is so bad that one is a danger to society, then one should be removed from society. Otherwise, let them be.

Ranger appears to think that some felons should not have guns....but who gives Ranger the right to write the list? Or if not him, then who?

That is the problem.

Most people (since they do not own guns) don't care about laws restricting the ownership of guns....but DO care that "safety" is the result of the law. Or the stated intention. Or what people hope will happen.

then, they go back to E! TV, or whatever.....

 

[W.E.C]

No more compromises... We've given up enough over the years already. IMO, if you can afford the firearm, and the ammo to feed it, you should be able to own it. That's everything from a BB gun up to (and beyond) a Howitzer.

As for PP's... IF you're a violent felon, and a danger to society, you should never get out of prison. That would make it a non-issue. If you do your time, and you're NOT a danger to society, all your citizen rights are restored. If you commit a second violent felony, then death sentence. No more "three strike" programs.

I also support negating all the gun control legislation of the past ~100 years (both state and federal levels).

Ok,I guess I'll keep my s&w .600 then.

 

[Volkl78]

If you are convicted of a violent crime you should not own a firearm, also there should be something in regards to the mentally ill but that is near impossible right now with the privacy laws. The first issue that needs to be addressed is mental illness but Obama doesn't dare touch that problem!

 

[MisterHappy]

If you are convicted of a violent crime you should not own a firearm, also there should be something in regards to the mentally ill but that is near impossible right now with the privacy laws. The first issue that needs to be addressed is mental illness but Obama doesn't dare touch that problem!

What is non-violent v. violent's line?

A white-collar embezzler should get to carry, yes? (after he's out, of course)

Oh, and what is the "mental illness" line in the sand?

 

[PaulD]

Gun folks that say "What part of shall not be infringed don't you understand?!?!?!" are literally incomprehensible to a lot of non-gun-owners.

They don't understand that saying, "Felon" is not a uniform term (the Martha Stewart reference is a good example).

Do I think that a serial armed robber, released from prison, is going to immediately get a job raking leaves to better society? Probably not. But having a law that says, "No gun for a felon!" will not stop him from getting one, if he decides to go back to the armed robbery business.

If one is so bad that one is a danger to society, then one should be removed from society. Otherwise, let them be.

Ranger appears to think that some felons should not have guns....but who gives Ranger the right to write the list? Or if not him, then who?

That is the problem.

Most people (since they do not own guns) don't care about laws restricting the ownership of guns....but DO care that "safety" is the result of the law. Or the stated intention. Or what people hope will happen.

then, they go back to E! TV, or whatever.....

The rub there is paying for it. We could probably afford it if we weren't putting away so many people for non-violent crimes like smoking pot.

 

[MisterHappy]

That's because it's "Safety at all costs!"...unfortunately, "Costs" come with costs.....

Oh, is it me, or has anyone else noticed that the "dollar cost" of police actions (hostage standoff, or whatever) is now part of the news story?

 

[mke0039]

there used to be 40,000 hospital beds available to the mentally ill.

Now there is something like 4,000

Regan dumped them on the street in the 80's, wow did he save some money.

So now when they steal Mom's AR and murder children....lets focus on the guns!

Politicians are such morons (when they are not being sleazy whores)

 

[edhead35]

No such thing as a compromise. Anti gunners will propose something ridiculous then propose something a little less ridiculous and call it compromise.

Rights are rights, privileges are privileges. If you are free to walk around and your 2A rights can be taken away they were never rights.

 

[Lank]

there used to be 40,000 hospital beds available to the mentally ill.

Now there is something like 4,000

Regan dumped them on the street in the 80's, wow did he save some money.

So now when they steal Mom's AR and murder children....lets focus on the guns!

Politicians are such morons (when they are not being sleazy whores)

When was it ever the federal gubbamints responsibility to house mentally ill?

It was, and still is a state/county/municipal obligation.

Oh wait, we're not in America anymore. We're in the Nationalist Union of North America.

 

[American 1]

Ok, so I'm new to guns. I didn't grow up with them and I don't know a lot of people who are into shooting. I've always been gun friendly - who knows where I picked that up - but, like a lot of people, I just didn't know much about gun laws. Then I applied for an LTC in Boston (approved with restrictions), and boy were my eyes opened. Bottom line: I had assumed gun laws made more sense than they do. I know, I know...I'm young and naive. Let's try to get past that.

My sense is that a lot of gun laws are written to appeal to non-gun owners, so they don't have to make sense. But here's my question: what gun laws would make sense? In other words, what gun laws (existing, proposed, or theoretical) would you be willing to either (a) support, or (b) live with if it meant an end to putting up with the constant gun-control pressure. I know that getting the issue off the political landscape is unrealistic, but let's approach this as a thought experiment. If you could figure out the compromise, what would it be?

Harvard Thesis?

 

[johnny.cassidy3]

Harvard Thesis?

I'd write;
"The only good gun law was written nearly 230 years ago"

Prof. Warren would comment;
" You failed to answer the question whole, your proposal would not put an end to the constant gun-control pressure and you failed to write it double-spaced, 20,000 pages, and in wording the general population and courts cannot understand". -F


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Engineer]

there used to be 40,000 hospital beds available to the mentally ill. Now there is something like 4,000

Reagan dumped them on the street in the 80's, wow did he save some money.

You identify the right issue, but i'm not sure i'd blame Reagan for the situation. In the 70's and early 80's, a patient's right to refuse treatment and forced institutionalization became a 'Civil Rights' issue and the courts sided with the 'Patient'. There are multiple state Supreme Court (including MA SJC) and US Supreme Court decisions on this. After these decisions, the role of mental health institutions changed greatly and so did governmental programs providing treatments (and Beds). We all see the tragic results...

 

[xcom]

Ask this another way first: what laws against speech are acceptable or laws against faith or abridging the right to counsel? Then you can ask about 2A.

 

[southshore]

The rub there is paying for it. We could probably afford it if we weren't putting away so many people for non-violent crimes like smoking pot.

Serious question here - How many people do you know or have first hand knowledge of going away for smoking pot? I've known lots of people who have been arrested for pot or with pot over the years and none did time for it. All the guys I know that have done time have many offenses and much more serious than having pot.

 

[swatgig]

In Massachusetts, defending yourself with a gun is considered a crime of violence.