Replies

But, you NEVER bypass the Bill of Rights, without due process. You wouldn’t tolerate stripping his ability to worship, associate with those he feels, have him forced to quarter troops, ect. As is, his 5th, 6th and 7th Ammendment rights have been bypassed - by a Police Dept.
The way due process works all the time and has historically is that someone is deprived of their "rights" first and this is followed up with adjudication. When someone gets arrested and put in jail pending trial, is that a violation of the Bill of Rights? Of course not.

His 2nd Ammendment rights, were upsurped by a group that are not empowered to do what they have done. The fact that this group has taken it upon themselves to bypass the Bill of Rights with impunity - is an issue in and of itself.
Unless and until the gun licensing regulations of the state of Massachusetts are successfully challenged, it appears that the police department does have the right and authority to suspend the firearms license of someone they had previously granted that license to. You may believe that licensing itself is a violation of the Constitution, but at this point in time the police did exactly what is within their authority. The article says that the length of the license suspension and whether it will be revoked will be decided on the conclusion of the police investigation. This is exactly how due process works.

Unless and until the gun licensing regulations of the state of Massachusetts are successfully challenged, it appears that the police department does have the right and authority to suspend the firearms license of someone they had previously granted that license to.

What any government claims authority to do, and what it has the natural right to do are two different things. Massachusetts has stripped a citizens' rights under color of law. That is wrong.

You know, if people like you keep supporting the almighty state, one of these days, there is going to be a bloody revolution, like there was last time.

What you are saying, is that an unelected body, can arbitrarily decide whether to grant, or revoke a Constitutional right.

Due Process must be fair. For a governing body to decide the fate of a person's fundamental right to protect himself, they MUST present him an opportuntity be able to defend his actions, and these actions must show or be based upon the commission of a crime. For example, if he was found Guilty of inciting - then the removal of his Gun Licence would be based upon an established act, a consequence of his actions as determined by a Court of Law, not a group of 'elites'. At this point in time, he has not been tried, let alone convicted. A 'punishment' was thus admistered without Due Process.

Under this method of operation, the Police Dept would be free to incarcerate him, and/or confiscate his home, possessions, finances as well. All they need do is 'investigate' - who needs a court system and all that hassle? After all, can't any of these be used to commission the crime they have merely accused him of contemplating?

What we have, is an unelected group of people, who have taken it upon themselves to deprive rights secured in the Bill of Rights - without a trial, without Constitutional authority, and without redress. Will this same commission now revoke his Driver's license? How about his Title on his house? Can they revoke the license for his car? You know, just to be 'safe'?

Now, with that said - let me re-iterate lest this point be forgotten. What this man did was recklessly abuse his Freedom of Speech, inciting others to commit murder. For this, he should be tried - and if found guilty, should be punished. As a part of his punishment - I have no issue with stripping his Gun License. But, that is not what has happened.