Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Massachusetts Moves Step Closer to Confiscating Private Firearms
Massachusetts Legislature ^ | 11/26/05

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.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: bang; banglist; bradybunch; commies; confiscation; cwii; freedom; gungrab; kennedystate; massachusetts; secondamendment; swimmersstate; taxachussetts; teddytheswimmer; waronsomeguns
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-215 next last
I have cointacted bill sponsor STATE REPRESENTATIVE TIMOTHY J. TOOMEY, JR. I await his reply.

Room 166 District Office

State House 550 Cambridge St

Boston, MA 02133 Cambridge, MA 02141

Telephone: (617) 722-2692 617-491-1846

Affiliation: Democrat

1 posted on 11/26/2005 12:43:10 PM PST by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: pabianice
Affiliation: Democrat

I'm shocked!

2 posted on 11/26/2005 12:45:49 PM PST by neodad (My ex-wife is stuck on stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

What a load of crap! What part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand. The frog boils slowly.


3 posted on 11/26/2005 12:51:56 PM PST by beltfed308 (Cloth or link. Happiness is a perfect trunnion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

guess he put the "ass" back in Mass. ,too.


4 posted on 11/26/2005 12:51:57 PM PST by Rakkasan1 (Peace de Resistance! Viva la Paper towels!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Isn't this the same type of governmental intrusion that led to some problems in Massachusetts in 1775?


5 posted on 11/26/2005 12:52:27 PM PST by 04-Bravo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 04-Bravo

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.


6 posted on 11/26/2005 12:53:19 PM PST by beltfed308 (Cloth or link. Happiness is a perfect trunnion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

To: pabianice

This sounds like a perfect 2nd Amendment test case if it goes through and SCOTUS has the stones to review it.


8 posted on 11/26/2005 12:54:30 PM PST by Semper Paratus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

A rally at Concord would be most fitting.


9 posted on 11/26/2005 12:54:32 PM PST by beltfed308 (Cloth or link. Happiness is a perfect trunnion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: William Creel
Just don't follow the law, and urge all of your friends not to.

NO!!

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.

10 posted on 11/26/2005 12:55:47 PM PST by freedumb2003 (Let's tear down the observatory so we never get hit by a meteor again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

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!


11 posted on 11/26/2005 12:56:13 PM PST by rottndog (WOOF!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
I wonder how many in LEO would have no problem enforcing such a law?

I suppose many would not risk their pension.

12 posted on 11/26/2005 12:56:30 PM PST by Mark was here (How can they be called "Homeless" if their home is a field?.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Geez, just move out of that 'rathole state and come to Texas.

< / total disgust >


13 posted on 11/26/2005 12:57:23 PM PST by ChefKeith ( If Diplomacy worked, then we would be sitting here talking...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
There IS a constitutional solution for governmental tyranny.
Somewhere between the 1st and 3rd ammendment, as I recall.
14 posted on 11/26/2005 12:57:55 PM PST by FreedomFarmer (This season, slap the Holiday Jeer out of every lib you meet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #15 Removed by Moderator

To: pabianice
Most disgustingly, this bill is being crammed through the Legislature under Homeland Security measures.

Why disgusting? What did you think 'homeland security' was about, if not government power?

16 posted on 11/26/2005 12:59:33 PM PST by Grut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: William Creel
Think about it, if we all stopped paying taxes, the government would have to find other means of revenue.

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.

17 posted on 11/26/2005 1:00:58 PM PST by freedumb2003 (Let's tear down the observatory so we never get hit by a meteor again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: beltfed308
Article [II.]
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.


Yep, it seems pretty cut and dried to me. Hasn't SCOTUS already ruled that you cannot require a license or fee for the exercise of a protected constitutional right?
18 posted on 11/26/2005 1:01:40 PM PST by rottndog (WOOF!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

I don't see the customary exemption for police and military written in this bill.


19 posted on 11/26/2005 1:01:47 PM PST by beltfed308 (Cloth or link. Happiness is a perfect trunnion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: William Creel
Good idea, William.

But almost no one would be brave enough to do it.

20 posted on 11/26/2005 1:02:29 PM PST by carenot (Proud member of The Flying Skillet Brigade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Comment #21 Removed by Moderator

To: rottndog

Yup.

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.


22 posted on 11/26/2005 1:09:17 PM PST by djf (Government wants the same things I do - MY guns, MY property, MY freedoms!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: beltfed308
Technically the 2nd Amend. has not been incorporated via the 14th Amend. which means local and State governments can put all kinds of restrictions on firearms.

Unless the Massachusetts Constitution has a "shall not be infringed" criteria in their document it citizens are at the mercy of the power whores who the electorate sent to represent the people of Massachusetts.
23 posted on 11/26/2005 1:09:44 PM PST by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: William Creel
Think about it, if we all stopped paying taxes, the government would have to find other means of revenue.

One of the reasons why withholding is so vile is that it takes away that option.

24 posted on 11/26/2005 1:10:59 PM PST by nina0113
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

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!


25 posted on 11/26/2005 1:11:34 PM PST by MassachusettsGOP (Massachusetts Republican....A rare breed indeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Irrelevant.

It'll be struck down by the SC faster then Bill Clinton can get his pants off at a sorrority party.


26 posted on 11/26/2005 1:12:33 PM PST by zbigreddogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
Provision of the Massachusetts Consitution:

"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."

http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/StateLaws.aspx?ST=MA

27 posted on 11/26/2005 1:15:32 PM PST by groanup (shred for Ian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

I disagree.

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.


28 posted on 11/26/2005 1:15:47 PM PST by zbigreddogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: rottndog
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has taken an absolutist view of the First Amendment, extending it to areas such as pornography, an area the framers would have not considered an area of political, religious, and philosophical speech, areas that the First Amendment was supposed to protect. On the other hand, the Federal judiciary has ignored the original intent of the Second Amendment, that all free adult men (who were members of the militia by cause of that status) had the right to keep and bear arms.

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.

29 posted on 11/26/2005 1:16:16 PM PST by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi
So your suggesting that not one of the the "Life, Liberty & Property" clauses of the 14th does not come into play in regard to owning a handgun in Mass?
30 posted on 11/26/2005 1:17:25 PM PST by TeleStraightShooter (When Frist exercises his belated Constitutional "Byrd option", Reid will have a "Nuclear Reaction".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

But criminals will be exempted from buying insurance.


31 posted on 11/26/2005 1:17:45 PM PST by pleikumud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zbigreddogz

"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.


32 posted on 11/26/2005 1:21:18 PM PST by freedumb2003 (Let's tear down the observatory so we never get hit by a meteor again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi
Article XIV.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.



I don't see where the 2nd amendment is carved out by the 14th. This seems to me a good case to use to reinforce that the 2nd amendment is covered by the 14th.
33 posted on 11/26/2005 1:21:21 PM PST by rottndog (WOOF!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: pabianice; 04-Bravo; beltfed308
BOSTON - April 20

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

34 posted on 11/26/2005 1:23:16 PM PST by Monitor (Gun control isn't about guns; it's about control.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi
Technically the 2nd Amend. has not been incorporated via the 14th Amend. which means local and State governments can put all kinds of restrictions on firearms.

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?

35 posted on 11/26/2005 1:23:46 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
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.

Eh?
36 posted on 11/26/2005 1:23:51 PM PST by Pox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
We are a Nation of Laws or we are nothing.


Considering how much immigration laws are ignored, I would have to say that we are more towards the side of nothing.
37 posted on 11/26/2005 1:24:51 PM PST by rottndog (WOOF!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
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.

I'm sure this will be balanced with one NRA member as well, of course.

/ sarcasm / bitterness / anger / rage / fury / hatred of socialist policy

38 posted on 11/26/2005 1:25:39 PM PST by Hardastarboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
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.


!!!!!
39 posted on 11/26/2005 1:26:14 PM PST by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pox

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


40 posted on 11/26/2005 1:26:26 PM PST by coloradan (Failing to protect the liberties of your enemies establishes precedents that will reach to yourself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

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.


41 posted on 11/26/2005 1:26:54 PM PST by zbigreddogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: 04-Bravo
"Isn't this the same type of governmental intrusion that led to some problems in Massachusetts in 1775?"

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.

42 posted on 11/26/2005 1:26:59 PM PST by Tench_Coxe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rottndog
I don't see where the 2nd amendment is carved out by the 14th

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.

43 posted on 11/26/2005 1:27:22 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Monitor

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.




Amendment X

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.


44 posted on 11/26/2005 1:27:51 PM PST by beltfed308 (Cloth or link. Happiness is a perfect trunnion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Mrs Mark
Image hosted by Photobucket.comyeah??? they'll risk more than their pension at some houses...
45 posted on 11/26/2005 1:28:54 PM PST by Chode (American Hedonist )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: rottndog
Considering how much immigration laws are ignored, I would have to say that we are more towards the side of nothing.

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.

46 posted on 11/26/2005 1:29:09 PM PST by freedumb2003 (Let's tear down the observatory so we never get hit by a meteor again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: beltfed308

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.


47 posted on 11/26/2005 1:29:28 PM PST by Emmett McCarthy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: William Creel
"I have half-harted support for anarchy to be honest."

I kinda that logic.


Look at what the LA riots did for 2nd. Amend rights when the Koreans store owners banded together to protect their lives and livelihood.
48 posted on 11/26/2005 1:29:44 PM PST by RedMonqey (Life is hard. It's even harder when you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
MASSACHUSETTS Declaration of Rights, Article 17

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.

49 posted on 11/26/2005 1:30:40 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

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).


50 posted on 11/26/2005 1:31:01 PM PST by pleikumud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-215 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson