|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
MA: Massachusetts Ban on Most Self-Defense Firearms Violates Second Amendment
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Massachusetts law currently prohibits ownership of gassault weapons,h the statutory definition of which includes the most popular semi-automatic rifles in the country, as well as gcopies or duplicatesh of any such weapons. As for what that means, your guess is as good as ours. A group of plaintiffs, including two firearm dealers and the Gun Ownersf Action League, challenged the law as an unconstitutional violation of their Second Amendment rights. Unfortunately, both a federal trial judge and appellate court upheld the ban—though they could not agree on why. |
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(10/29/2019)
|
| What part about "Shall Not Infringe" confused them do you think? It would be interesting to hear where these oath breakers think that their expanded powers have come from. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(10/29/2019)
|
Re: the 'tests' of the lower and appellate courts
"Like an M-16"? "Like a handgun"? Shirley you jest.
"[T]he Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding." D.C. v. Heller (2008)
The dicta in Heller settles those questions in one sentence, and these courts are disingenuously circling the issue to get from point A to point B.
Their 'reasoning' is not reasoning at all. It is facially spurious. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. — James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]. |
|
|
