Skip to comments.SJC will review gun lock ruling - Law at odds with US high court (MA)
Posted on 06/19/2009 3:12:43 PM PDT by neverdem
The states highest court plans to review the constitutionality of a recently challenged state law that requires gun owners to lock their weapons, making it the first test in Massachusetts of a landmark US Supreme Court ruling that Americans have the constitutional right to own guns and stow them as they see fit.
The SJC decided to review the law less than a year after a Lowell District Court judge dismissed firearms charges against a Billerica man whose handicapped son was accused of shooting a BB gun at a neighbor and who then showed police officers where his father kept other unlocked weapons.
The Lowell judge cited the Supreme Courts ruling in dismissing the case against Richard Runyan of Billerica, who in April 2008 was charged with improperly storing a semiautomatic hunting rifle, a 12-gauge shotgun, and a drawer full of ammunition.
Last June, the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia vs. Heller that Washington, D.C., which had the nations strictest gun-control laws, could not require gun owners to keep their weapons disassembled and that the Second Amendment provides individuals the right to keep and bear arms for their personal use.
But the court did not indicate whether the Second Amendment supersedes state and local laws, and as a result, it has sparked lawsuits and rulings throughout the country similar to the decision in Lowell District Court.
In a brief to the Supreme Judicial Court filed this month, prosecutors in the Middlesex district attorneys office argue that the Second Amendment applies only to Congress and the federal government. They argue that the Constitution allows states to make their own laws regulating gun ownership and that the Massachusetts Constitution has greater authority in this case.
The SJC has previously affirmed the states gun laws, which require gun owners to be...
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Second: "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."
Sounds like the protection of gun rights are just as absolute as those of free speech and religion.
Just like with the First Amendment, the right to privacy, etc.
No inconsistencies here.
No, it sounds like they are MORE absolute.
My pistol instructor tells me that some trigger locks can make the gun go off if accidentally dropped.
I figure that trigger locks are something like a tax on the weapon. I pay for it as part of the purchase and then, knowing it’s of no use to me, I throw it away.
The issue here should be failure to keep a mentally incompetent dependent supervised and secure. If the young man's intellect and impulse control are this deficient, his legal guardians shouldn't be letting him run around unsupervised. He could set fires, push a toddler into a swimming pool, or run in front of a truck. In all likelihood, there had been previous incidents in which people saw this young man unsupervised and doing something potentially unsafe for himself or others. THAT is when police should have been called, and legal taken, and appropriate intervention made, and then the shooting incident most likely would never have happened.
So, they’re saying that states can restrict speech and expression of religion, the right to assemble, the right to privacy in the papers and belongings, etc., and protection against unreasonable search and seizure, negate the right to a speedy trial and due process and to not give statements or other evidence against their own interests, and so on?
Or would the 2A be the ONLY amendment defining a right that can be curtailed by a state? If so, what is the language in the constitution or the Bill of Rights that specifies that the 2A is the ONLY amendment that can be abridged by states?
The 2nd is EVEN MORE absolute! FYI: There is no NEED for the Supremes to consider 2nd Amendment Incorporation! FACT: The 2nd Amendment is SELF-incorporated to all government entities at every level. It is MORE ABSOLUTE than the 1st Amendment, or any of the others, because the wording forbids not only CONGRESS, but ANYONE from infringing on it. The 1st says Congress shall make no law.... The 2nd say shall NOT be infringed! Period! End of debate!
Read the comment just uder yours.
Yeah, true, thanks. But my point was that it is beyond absurd for only the 2A to be considered subject to individual state restrictions, but not the rest of the amendments in the BoR.
Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
Thanks for the ping!
Might as well be a rock or a hammer.
Rock locks has a nice ring to it, though.