The Massachusetts Constitution

[WayneWong]

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.

Comment: What would prevent someone with a target and hunting restriction from requesting "and for the common defense" to be added to the card in accordance with Article XVII the Mass State Constitution.



Include a reference to Article CVI for good measure:


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.


I want to "defend my life and liberty" in accordance with Article CVI of the Mass. Constitution.


Wouldn't denial of these rights be direct denial of one's constitutional rights.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

What would prevent someone with a target and hunting restriction from requesting "and for the common defense"

Doing so would be silly and pointless. The MA SJC court has ruled that "for the common defense" does not convey any right to firearms possession upon any individual, therefore the clause is irrelevant. In other words, the state constitution is void where prohibited by law.

 

[hicksonj]

Commonwealth v. Davis

 

[Rockrivr1]

So basically, this makes the Massachusett's Constitution a worthless piece of paper that holds less usefullness then toilet paper.

 

[PSS]

the pothus seems to use the constitution for toilet paper every day

 

[cekim]

So basically, this makes the Massachusett's Constitution a worthless piece of paper that holds less usefullness then toilet paper.

Yes - though we've had one SCOTUS decision that flies in the face of Commiewealth v Davis now and may soon have another...

If 2A is incorporated, it would be my useless understanding of the law that that case would now be directly challenged in its finding both in specific language by heller (a "collective right") and in pre-emption (overruled by 2A per incorporation)...

As such we could ram 30 years of BS law down their throats and ask them how they like them apples...

 

[boomerang]

The USSR constitution of 1936 reads very similar to ours (but without gun rights).

But they trashed theirs toot-sweet.

 

[theGringo]

Yes - though we've had one SCOTUS decision that flies in the face of Commiewealth v Davis now and may soon have another...

If 2A is incorporated, it would be my useless understanding of the law that that case would now be directly challenged in its finding both in specific language by heller (a "collective right") and in pre-emption (overruled by 2A per incorporation)...

As such we could ram 30 years of BS law down their throats and ask them how they like them apples...

Indeed. From Comm. v. Davis, re: the Second Amendment:

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.

This already seems a little silly in view of Heller. Let us hope for incorporation.

 

[cekim]

This already seems a little silly in view of Heller. Let us hope for incorporation.

It's beyond silly, it's historically incorrect/specious and now it is overruled...

But that won't matter to MA unless 2A is incorporated...

 

[jcr]

Following is some more information on the Commonwealth v. Davis case.

Hubert Davis began the appeal pro se. It seems that the court notified his criminal defense attorney who then became involved. I'm not sure who actually wrote the brief, but it is not strong.

Then again, the states brief is very unpersuasive, unless you want to believe them.

Keep in mind that this case was decided by the SJC at the time that an initiative petition was moving to the ballot in November of the that year. The anti-gunners were trying to ban handguns in Massachusetts with the referendum. It seems that the SJC wanted to make the point that they thought such a handgun ban would pass (state) constitutional muster if it passed. It looks like they took the direct appeal almost immediately (rather than let lower courts hear it) to get it done in time for the election.

The Boston Globe was stunned when the handgun ban was defeated by a large margin.

Comm v. Davis info

 

[MassMark]

My brain hurts...

 

[TomH]

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.

Comment: What would prevent someone with a target and hunting restriction from requesting "and for the common defense" to be added to the card in accordance with Article XVII the Mass State Constitution.



Include a reference to Article CVI for good measure:


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.


I want to "defend my life and liberty" in accordance with Article CVI of the Mass. Constitution.


Wouldn't denial of these rights be direct denial of one's constitutional rights.

Yes. Unfortunately the gov is great at denying and curtailing your rights.

 

[RKG]

Yes - though we've had one SCOTUS decision that flies in the face of Commiewealth v Davis now and may soon have another...

If 2A is incorporated, it would be my useless understanding of the law that that case would now be directly challenged in its finding both in specific language by heller (a "collective right") and in pre-emption (overruled by 2A per incorporation)...

As such we could ram 30 years of BS law down their throats and ask them how they like them apples...

I take the question to be: what would be the status of this provision of the Massachusetts constitution were the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution held to be "incorporated" into the Fourteenth Amendment and, therefore, applicable to state governments as well as to the federal government?

There would be no direct effect. Since the Massachusetts provision grants fewer rights (if, indeed, any at all) to the individual, it would continue to be irrelevant to most of the issues we might hypothesize, and those issues would now become subject to resolution consonant with the Second Amendment.

While the pending "incorporation" cases are important, assuming they resolve the "incorporation" issue our way, the result of this is largely meaningless in Massachusetts unless and until there are further decisions spelling out what the Second Amendment means in terms of carrying outside of the home. At the moment, the Massachusetts licensing statutes would not have failed under the test applied in Heller. If they are invalid under the Second Amendment, it will be because of some further adjudication as to what the Second Amendment means in a licensing context.

 

[cekim]

While the pending "incorporation" cases are important, assuming they resolve the "incorporation" issue our way, the result of this is largely meaningless in Massachusetts unless and until there are further decisions spelling out what the Second Amendment means in terms of carrying outside of the home. At the moment, the Massachusetts licensing statutes would not have failed under the test applied in Heller. If they are invalid under the Second Amendment, it will be because of some further adjudication as to what the Second Amendment means in a licensing context.

Agreed - there is rational thought and legal theory and there is what MA will do which is fight tooth and nail to preserve their unconstitutional legislation for as long as possible...

I've said before that a SCOTUS win on incorporation would just be the start of the legal battle here...

But the journey of a thousand miles begins with one step...