Mass. Lawmakers Give Police Chiefs Power to Decide Who Can Purchase Shotguns, Rifles

Breitbart ^ | 8/1/2014 | AWR Hawkins

[usconservative]

Question: When the police chief "allows" someone to have a gun, and that person commits a murder with the gun, will the police chief now be an accessory to murder?

After all, he has the authority to grant & deny.

[Still Thinking]

House Speaker Robert DeLeo (D) commented on the law: "We seek not to be the safest state in the nation but strive to make our communities the safest in the world."

Apparently, the chief danger is that of tyranny. Someone needs to do something about that.

[Enterprise]

There was a debate at the time as to which should be the first amendment. Some wanted the right to keep and bear arms to be the first amendment and some wanted the issue of religion and speech to be the first amendment. For whatever reason, speech and religion was chosen. To me, when it was written that "Congress shall make no law," it meant that that Congress was prohibited from getting involved in religion or speech issues, leaving any problems that may arise to the states to solve.

"You raise an interesting question, and I would love the idea of the 2A riding supreme over all the other Amendments, as the only one that applies to the laws of the States. But I've never heard of that as being the intent of the document, have you?"

Let me skip Amendment 1 and 2, and illustrate how absurd other laws would read if the writers kept to the phrase "Congress shall make no law," and why this and other amendments were constructed to make sure that the people's rights were to be honored EVERYWHERE in this nation.

The Third Amendment states:

" No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

If this Amendment had started with "Congress shall make no law," it would have left it open for States to allow for the quartering officers of the state in private residences. Absurd isn't it? But it wasn't worded that way, and we accept without question the wording of the Third Amendment as a flat prohibition of ANYONE from forcing private owners to house military personnel.

It leaves no wiggle room for States, and subsequently Counties or Cities to decide otherwise.

Let's look at the 4th Amendment.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Again, this didn't start with "Congress shall make no law," and we accept as a finality that NO ONE shall make laws which would compromise the right of the people to be secure in their houses, persons, papers, and effects. Again, this leaves no wiggle room for States, Counties and Cities to decide otherwise.

And now, the 5th Amendment.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Again, this doesn't start with "Congress shall make no law," as it is evident that the the Amendment prohibits ANYONE from passing laws taking away our right not to testify against ourselves, or taking away our right to life, liberty, or property without due process. We understand these are OUR rights, and all governmental agencies are flatly PROHIBITED from altering them to our detriment.

Back to the 2nd Amendment. It didn't start with "Congress shall make no law," and it's damned fortunate for us that it didn't start this way. Despite the rhetoric of the left, there is no wiggle room in this Amendment either, to allow States, Counties, or Cities to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. There is a unifying theme to the bill of rights. The theme is that they are OUR RIGHTS, and all governmental agencies are FORBIDDEN to violate them.

[capt. norm]

This is openly inviting ass-kissing and/or bribery.

[SamuraiScot]

It leaves no wiggle room for States, and subsequently Counties or Cities to decide otherwise.

Okay, so I looked up "Does Bill of Rights . . ." and auto-complete offered me "apply to the states". I'm not always a fan of Wikipedia, but this link seemed pretty user-friendly and also scholarly. It has a time-line of when parts of the Bill of Rights were "incorporated against" the States. The article says the Supreme Court in 1833 flatly held that the Bill of Rights did not apply to State governments, but to Congress.

A case in New York that was decided by the USSC in 1925, Gitlow v. New York, is said to be the first where the Court held that States were bound to protect freedom of speech because of an obligation to incorporate the Bill of Rights. Through the rest of the 20th century, more and more provisions of the Bill of Rights were incorporated to the States and localities, rather than the Federal government. Judging quickly from the names, it was mostly liberal judges supporting liberal causes, but that's not necessarily here or there.

Unless the article is completely upside-down on its facts, it would appear that the freedoms of the Bill of Rights in earlier times were defended within States and localities through the kind of "peer pressure" of other American localities. On the desired result, there's no dispute possible among real Americans. But it appears that the liberty enshrined in American civic and legal culture did not come about because of the incorporation doctrine. It seems to have preceded that doctrine by 150 years. Let me know what you think!

[Enterprise]

I think that despite the amusing Supreme Court decision of 1833, the people who wrote the bill of rights intended from the beginning that their rights were to be held inviolable, regardless of Government Jurisdiction. These people had just come through a Revolutionary War, and they repudiated the right of a foreign King or Government to rule over them in violation of basic rights. Having fought to rid themselves of unjust rule by a King or Foreign Government, they wouldn't have allowed local tyrants or thugs to rule over them unjustly either! These rights were intended from the beginning to be the rights of the people, and it is unfortunate that any Judicial Body was ever confused about what the people intended.

[Pollster1]

Let's think about this carefully. It says, "Congress shall make no law . . ." The fact that it doesn't say, "No State shall make a law . . ." means it's not unconstitutional for Mass. to go all nanny-Nazi over guns. Crazy, but not unconstitutional. The powers of the Federal government are "few and defined" for a reason: to allow States to compete against each other, improve on each other, copy each other, or move in the opposite direction to attract all the best settlers.

I read this differently. The "Congress shall make no law . . ." in the First Amendment rather than, "shall not be infringed . . ." as in the Second Amendment means it was not explicitly unconstitutional for Mass. to go all nanny-Nazi over free speech and over freedom of the press when the Bill of Rights passed. It's only the Second Amendment that was approved with the absolute blanket protection of "shall not be infringed" to prevent any level of government from interfering with the fundamental, God-given right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is only the Second Amendment that was written explicitly so that it was already incorporated when written.

[cva66snipe]

So they passed this? IOW if anti Second Amendment Chief Goebbels says no one needs to be armed but us then Chief Obie Goebbels decides he doesn’t want anyone to purchase or own firearms his word is law? Well it would make his being run out of town on a rail more difficult. It would also strengthen his awthaaaawity. When government decides what you can own or how much then government owns you likewise.

[kiryandil]

At that time Evans also said, "For the most part, nobody in [Boston] needs a shotgun. Nobody needs a rifle."

Well, except for the Swarms of Taxachusetts Officers, whose job it is to harass the Massachusetts peasants, and eat out their substance.

THOSE officers need automatic weapons, MRAPs, Bearcats and dozens and dozens of smalltown SWAT teams, dressed in Tacticool like the Gear Queers that they are...

[kiryandil]

“Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts ,” Romney said. “These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”

Which is why the Swarms of Officers at the federal, state & local levels are all armed with deadly assault weapons...

[MaxMax]

This is the same method Congress and the Senate are using to give themselves
plausible deniability with the EPA, and all the other alphabet branches.
They give them the ultimate authority with laws that should be passed by the house.
They call them Rules/Regulations now instead of laws, like calling Taxes-Fees.

Some might argue that it's not because they passed a law allowing Dept oversight.
Well, the US Constitution is considered Supreme law, and no law can usurp it
and laws/Rules/Regulations whatever, should be considered DOA unless passed properly.

Perverting the US Constitution.

[ansel12]

They are America’s top recreational and self defense rifles.