Skip to comments.Massachusetts Moves Step Closer to Confiscating Private Firearms
Posted on 11/26/2005 12:43:07 PM PST by pabianice
In November, the Massachusetts House of Representatives moved favorably from committee H. 2125, which brings the state one step closer to its goal of the confiscation of privately owned firearms.
Under this bill, all private owners of handguns would have to register each handgun with the police and have a separate $ 250,000 liability insurance policy on each handgun or have that handgun confiscated (insurance professionals: care to estimate the cost of such a policy to the holder?). Each such insurance policy must cover the potential theft and unlawful use of the gun. If the policy is inadequate to cover any subsequent court judgment against the lawful gunowner, he will be thrown in jail for five years for each offense. In cases where a finding of fact and guilt is to be made, one member of any such committee must be a member of Stop Handgun Violence, Inc.
There's more. Anyone who sells someone more than one gun a month shall be imprisoned for up to life. However, this law will not apply to anyone under the age of 18.
Most disgustingly, this bill is being crammed through the Legislature under Homeland Security measures.
Room 166 District Office
State House 550 Cambridge St
Boston, MA 02133 Cambridge, MA 02141
Telephone: (617) 722-2692 617-491-1846
What a load of crap! What part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand. The frog boils slowly.
guess he put the "ass" back in Mass. ,too.
Isn't this the same type of governmental intrusion that led to some problems in Massachusetts in 1775?
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
This sounds like a perfect 2nd Amendment test case if it goes through and SCOTUS has the stones to review it.
A rally at Concord would be most fitting.
File an injunction and follow it up to SCOTUS (where we will win).
But stash your weaponry in nearby states if it looks bad.
If we practice civil disobedience then the Left will do the same and there is no law at all.
It's hard to believe how stupid Democrats are. Time and again they get royally thumped at the polls when they push gun control.
Therefore, my response to Mr. Toomey is to say more power to ya!
I suppose many would not risk their pension.
Geez, just move out of that 'rathole state and come to Texas.
< / total disgust >
Why disgusting? What did you think 'homeland security' was about, if not government power?
But it won't happen, as much as some would like it to.
Politics is the at if the possible. Defying laws just because you don't like them leads to anarchy at best.
We have a system in place to handle this -- use it.
I don't see the customary exemption for police and military written in this bill.
But almost no one would be brave enough to do it.
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105, a case heard in 1943 where a town tried to make people distributing religious literature obtain a license.
The state got slapped silly on that one.
One of the reasons why withholding is so vile is that it takes away that option.
The fact is we have a dictatorial legislature. They have carved the districts so much that a Democrat super-majority is gaurenteed, and have stripped the Governor of of many of his powers since the office became Republican 16 years ago. We are almost at the point at which we should scrap the state constitution and start over again in my opinion. MASSACHUSETTS NEEDS TO BE LIBERATED!
It'll be struck down by the SC faster then Bill Clinton can get his pants off at a sorrority party.
"The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common 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." Declaration of Rights, Article 17."
Civil Disobedience isn't a first resort, but it's not necessarily the last either, and it can be very effective.
I don't think I'd use it here, because I'm pretty sure the courts will strike the law down (assuming they have the votes to override a veto by Romney, which I'm sure he will do if he wants a chance in hell at 2008), but I don't necessarily think I'd be discouraging people from civil disobediance either.
No law is perfect, and no law can survive the most extreme circumstances. This is bordering on an extreme case.
The question is: will Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and (if approved) Alito return to the doctrine of original intent in this matter? If they do, and if conservatives can replace Kennedy or Ginsburg with a like minded justice, firearms ownership restrictions on state and local level could go the way of anti-pornography laws and blue laws. However, these are very big "ifs" and Scalia and especially Thomas are strong advocates of states rights.
But criminals will be exempted from buying insurance.
"This is bordering on an extreme case."
So could the Left say when the unconstitutional Roe v Wade is struck down. One man's "extreme case" is another man's "extremist stand."
Pick and choose laws to follow and everyone else will feel they can do the same.
We have seen it on the Left (and on the Right as in the abortion doctor killings).
We are a Nation of Laws or we are nothing.
National guard units seeking to confiscate a cache of recently banned weapons were ambushed on April 19th by elements of a para-military extremist faction. Military and law enforcement sources estimate that 72 were killed and more than 200 injured before government forces were compelled to withdraw.
Speaking after the clash Massachusetts Governor Thomas Gage declared that the extremist faction, which was made up of local citizens, has links to the radical right-wing tax protest movement. Gage blamed the extremists for recent incidents of vandalism directed against internal revenue offices. The governor, who described the group's organizers as "criminals," issued an executive order authorizing the summary arrest of any individual who has interfered with the government's efforts to secure law and order.
The military raid on the extremist arsenal followed wide-spread refusal by the local citizenry to turn over recently outlawed weapons. Gage issued a ban on private ownership of weapons and ammunition earlier in the week. This decision followed a meeting in early this month between government and military leaders at which the governor authorized the forcible confiscation of illegal arms. One government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, pointed out that "none of these people would have been killed had the extremists obeyed the law and turned over their weapons voluntarily."
Government troops initially succeeded in confiscating a large supply of outlawed weapons and ammunition. However, troops attempting to seize arms and ammunition in Lexington met with resistance from heavily-armed extremists who had been tipped off regarding the government's plans.
During a tense standoff in Lexington's town park, National Guard Colonel Francis Smith, commander of the government operation, ordered the armed group to surrender and return to their homes. The impasse was broken by a single shot, which was reportedly fired by one of the right-wing extremists. Eight civilians were killed in the ensuing exchange. Ironically, the local citizenry blamed government forces rather than the extremists for the civilian deaths.
Before order could be restored, armed citizens from the surrounding areas had descended upon the guard units. Colonel Smith, finding his forces overmatched by the armed mob, ordered a retreat.
Governor Gage has called upon citizens to support the state national joint task force in its effort to restore law and order. The governor has also demanded the surrender of those responsible for planning and leading the attack against the government troops. Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, and John Hancock, who have been identified as "ringleaders" of the extremist faction, remain at large.
First reported on April 20, 1775
The 2nd Amendment doesn't have to be "incorporated via the 14th Amendment", it's quite clear in acknowledging an individual "right of the people" to KABA's.
The phrase "right of the people" is not amibigous at all. Why are you having trouble with it?
I'm sure this will be balanced with one NRA member as well, of course.
/ sarcasm / bitterness / anger / rage / fury / hatred of socialist policy
In cases where a finding of fact and guilt is to be made,
one member of any such committee must be a member of Stop Handgun Violence, Inc.
That's just to ensure that the death-grip the NRA has over Taxachussetts can't be used to unfairly sway cases in favor of gun owners. /dripping sarcasm, obviously
Using that logic, we would have been two countries come around 1860 and black people wouldn't be voting in the South.
The lines are murkey, granted, and you shouldn't decide lightly, but you can't merely say all laws are absolute at all times. There are times where they become subordinate to other things.
Actually, very similar. General Gage had sent British troops to Lexington and Concord to confiscate cannon held by the colonists.
You know, Mass could really go for symbolism by publically confiscating firearms at Concord, just to show that tyranny wasn't defeated.
Thats because it's not, the second stands on it's own and incorporation by the 14th is neither necessary nor desirable.
"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."
Massachustees is infringing, not regualting. Good case for SCOTUS when Alito gets there.
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.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
OUch! I can't do anything about our leaders ignoring laws and I agree yours is a great example of what happens when we ignore them.
Well, the U.S. Constitution may not be perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than what we're living under now.
The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common 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 shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.
Everyone who is eligible should buy a gun and learn how to use it. This would protect us against criminals, terrorists,and socialists (same as Democrats).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.