Civil Rights

[Slipknot]

good article here that is very telling of the age we live in and the danger ahead. There is a process to law and Healy went right around that with her directive that has been applauded by gun grabbers. Taking away law abiding citizens' right to defend themselves while allowing criminals to plea bargain away jail sentences is not in the best interest of public safety if you ask me. Just because some nutjob shoots some people, that doesn't mean a gun is bad, the gun did not pull it's own trigger. She is taking the easy way out instead of taking on mental health issues and domestic terrorism so disarm the tax payers instead, BRILLIANT!
I am so fed up with liberals and gun grabbers trying to destroy our country. Vote them out of office and choose someone who will uphold the Constitution which is being dragged thru the mud.


here is the article


Healey tramping on our civil rights

Posted on August 17, 2016
Healey tramping on our civil rights
Sentinel & Enterprise
UPDATED: 08/16/2016 06:34:12 AM EDT


By Art O’Leary

Guest Columnist

Upon returning from an extended trip in the wilderness, I was dismayed to learn that our attorney general, Maura Healey, has once again sought to use the power of her office to infringe upon the basic civil rights of the inhabitants of the commonwealth.

By issuing an overnight edict as interpretation of established law, without any public input or due process, she has demonstrated contempt for the citizenry and a blatant disregard for the fundamentals of constitutional government, where the Legislature makes the laws, the judicial branch interprets them and the executive branch carries them out.

Now, our existing Massachusetts gun laws — love ’em or hate ’em — were arrived at by the people’s representatives in our bicameral Legislature, with substantial input from all stakeholders at hearings around the state, and with compromises from all sides. To issue a unilateral ban on an entire class of lawful firearms is more in line with the behavior of a despot, a KGB commissar, than that of the chief law enforcement officer in the state where the concept of American liberty was born! Indeed, our shores have not seen this level of tyranny since the days of Gov. Hutchinson and the stamp tax.

The attorney general is using her taxpayer-funded office to prohibit sales and ownership of modern sporting rifles that are “Mass.

legal,” i.e., sold and possessed in compliance with the laws of the commonwealth. She is putting personal prejudices ahead of reality. This illegal behavior is supported by Beacon Hill bobbleheads and big-city politicians — those to whom power is more important than freedom and their oath of office.Look at the statistics: These rifles are hardly ever used in crimes, except by evil men in gun-free zones and in a few big cities where politicians are corrupt, crime and drug gangs are rampant, and existing gun laws are not enforced. It is these evil men that need controlling, not lawfully owned inanimate objects.

There are those who say that our Second Amendment freedoms do not apply to target practice. On the contrary, that is exactly what the term “well-regulated” meant back in the days when our Bill of Rights was written — practicing civilian marksmanship. A “well regulated militia” is ordinary citizens doing their target practice.

Now, if you were to visit any sportsmen’s club in the state, you would see that AR-type firearms are very popular. Whether just for fun, or in serious competition, smiling shooters and their friends and family are hitting the bull’s-eye with their AR’s. (AR, by the way stands for “Armalite rifle,” not “assault rifle.”)

The shooting sports are one place where shooters of all ages, genders and abilities can compete as truly equals, and safety is paramount. I myself have often shot in local matches alongside expert marksmen and women shooting near-perfect scores with their match-grade AR’s. Many of these same marksmen, who offer friendly advice and coaching to beginners, were just out at Camp Perry competing in the National Matches.

Whether you own a gun or not, your civil rights have been violated in this illegal action. In usurping the power of legitimate government to enforce her personal ideologies upon the citizenry, by putting politics above the God-given rights of man, our attorney general has shown herself to be unworthy of the office. She should resign in shame!

Art O’Leary is a Scoutmaster, engineer and president of Leominster Sportsmen’s Association.

Source : Sentinnel and Enterprise

[wdmso]

lie number 1: Taking away law abiding citizens' right to defend themselves

lie number 2 allowing criminals to plea bargain away jail sentences is not in the best interest of public safety .. been do it for 100 years not just Healy


truth:There is a process to law and Healy went right around agree

Have as many guns as you want they should be reregistered thats my stance ..

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

lie number 2 allowing criminals to plea bargain away jail sentences is not in the best interest of public safety .. been do it for 100 years not just Healy ..

So then it's not a lie is it...just a continued truth.

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by wdmso

lie number 1: Taking away law abiding citizens' right to defend themselves

lie number 2 allowing criminals to plea bargain away jail sentences is not in the best interest of public safety .. been do it for 100 years not just Healy


truth:There is a process to law and Healy went right around agree

Have as many guns as you want they should be reregistered thats my stance ..

Registration is a different subject but while you brought it up, I have no problem either with following the law as it is understood. I wonder where criminals stand on registration? hmmmm I bet they don't go along with that either. Registration is the first step to confiscation. If lawmakers or Judges remove the second amendment, they should be the ones who come to gun owners to try to take them away.


So my statement is a lie? "Taking away law abiding citizens' right to defend themselves while allowing criminals to plea bargain away jail sentences is not in the best interest of public safety if you ask me. "

or you are just picking pieces of it like spence does?

Healy's directive from July 20th takes away the ability to purchase a rifle that was legal to purchase before July 20th. Tell me more about how that is a lie.

I did not say Healy was the only one plea bargaining down gun charges which have a mandatory sentence. Not a lie. She is the AG, she doesn't prosecute, that is for District Attorneys as you well know. They use the mandatory sentence as a tool so their jobs are easier and less court battles. If thugs had to sit in jail, maybe there would be less incentive to a life of crime and less guns would be in demand on the street. Her directive did not get one gun off the street and she knows it. Political stunt that she has been and will be hammered on this as she constantly changes things and updates her Q&A and page about this. She has even gone so far as to post a tab for support so she can pat herself on the back Pathetic.
So what I am saying is she should stop violating civil rights and hurting families and business owners by her over-reach and actually enforce the laws that the State has given her like the mandatory time for unlawful possession. Stick them in jail, rehabilitate them. If that doesn't work then figure out something else but do not disarm we the people.

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by wdmso

lie number 1: Taking away law abiding citizens' right to defend themselves

lie number 2 allowing criminals to plea bargain away jail sentences is not in the best interest of public safety .. been do it for 100 years not just Healy


truth:There is a process to law and Healy went right around agree

Have as many guns as you want they should be reregistered thats my stance ..

AG office has instantaneous access to the MIRCs list which is a registration list

Why should the government know which guns I have or do not have, as a law abiding gun owner?

They have no idea what guns a criminal has

[ecduzitgood]

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/08/2...-shows?ref=yfp
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

AG office has instantaneous access to the MIRCs list which is a registration list

Why should the government know which guns I have or do not have, as a law abiding gun owner?

They have no idea what guns a criminal has

they should know which guns you have or do not have..

So when the criminal uses the gun you had.. but no one knew that it was stolen and not reported ... or sold in a straw purchase they or a legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. sold it these are all ways bad guys get guns

they can ask about it

good article

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ocon/guns.html

[spence]

Originally Posted by wdmso

they should know which guns you have or do not have..

So when the criminal uses the gun you had.. but no one knew that it was stolen and not reported ... or sold in a straw purchase they or a legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. sold it these are all ways bad guys get guns

they can ask about it

good article

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ocon/guns.html

The only solution is to arm everybody with millions of more guns and not keep track of any of them...that's about it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by spence

The only solution is to arm everybody with millions of more guns and not keep track of any of them...that's about it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That sounds about right. Crime would drop like a stone. However accidental deaths would go up.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

[QUOTE=wdmso;1106775]they should know which knife you have or do not have..

So when the criminal uses the knife you had.. but no one knew that it was stolen and not reported ... or sold in a straw purchase they or a legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial knife dealers. sold it these are all ways bad guys get knives

they can ask about it

[Slipknot]

I guess this state has it's tyrants all the way up to the judicial branch as well as the AG.

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.s...assachu_1.html


I guess it should be taken all the way to the supreme court

sad state of affairs for sure

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

I guess this state has it's tyrants all the way up to the judicial branch as well as the AG.

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.s...assachu_1.html


I guess it should be taken all the way to the supreme court

sad state of affairs for sure

Your Civil Rights are only guaranteed if the politicians in power can make bank, ahem, votes on it.

[wdmso]

again there is no ban you can still own a gun in MA People are crying because they cant have the gun they want big difference nor has there been anyone taking peoples guns the past 20 years its been in place


from the ruling

“In the absence of federal legislation, Massachusetts is free to ban these weapons and large-capacity magazines. Other states are equally free to leave them unregulated and available to their law-abiding citizens. These policy matters are simply not of constitutional moment.”


Young cited a landmark 2008 Supreme Court decision that found that “weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like” are not protected under the Second Amendment and “may be banned.”


not sure why Conservatives only respect the law they want to respect I see this alot

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by wdmso

not sure why Conservatives only respect the law they want to respect I see this alot

You are correct - many conservative (R)s & (D)s - yes there are a few of us left - have no or little respect for a government functionary (elected or not) that interprets power to limit a law-abiding citizen's Constitutional Right.

However, the difference between a conservative (R)s & yes; (D)s, is that the conservative and law abiding citizen will comply with the law, grumpily, and respond at the ballot box.

Progressives, on the other hand, will *RESIST* or create Sanctuaries, and defy the laws. Or they will try to manipulate the language from something OhIDunno like Illegal to OhIDunno Undocumented.

Yeh Wayne - great job picking out a defensible high ground to soapbox from...

[The Dad Fisherman]

Beat me to it, John
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by wdmso

again there is no ban you can still own a gun in MA People are crying because they cant have the gun they want big difference nor has there been anyone taking peoples guns the past 20 years its been in place

Chipping away piece by piece, compromise after compromise, first it's this gun, then it's that gun, then it is copycats, then eventually bb guns.
Believe what you want, I see the truth.
Their goal is a ban period, it may take generations but that is their goal. And if you don't see it, it is because you are blind, indoctrinated, brainwashed or too stupid to see the results of history. It has nothing to do with crying and everything to do with agenda and taking advantage of everytime there is a shooting.

Legislation by edict is unconstitutional.

[detbuch]

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by JohnR

You are correct - many conservative (R)s & (D)s - yes there are a few of us left - have no or little respect for a government functionary (elected or not) that interprets power to limit a law-abiding citizen's Constitutional Right.

However, the difference between a conservative (R)s & yes; (D)s, is that the conservative and law abiding citizen will comply with the law, grumpily, and respond at the ballot box.

Progressives, on the other hand, will *RESIST* or create Sanctuaries, and defy the laws. Or they will try to manipulate the language from something OhIDunno like Illegal to OhIDunno Undocumented.

Yeh Wayne - great job picking out a defensible high ground to soapbox from...

local states cities refusing to do federal law enforcement job with out compensation and the term Sanctuaries city's was created by the Right who love to yell states rights again until they disagree

Under federal law, it is a crime for anyone to enter into the US without the approval of an immigration officer -- it's a misdemeanor offense that carries fines and no more than six months in prison.
Many foreign nationals, however, enter the country legally every day on valid work or travel visas, and end up overstaying for a variety of reasons.
But that's not a violation of federal criminal law -- it's a civil violation that gets handled in immigration court proceedings.

but please change the topic ...the law is clear in both cases and in both cases its the responsibility of law makers to fix or change the laws.

you just dont like push back comments.. on soap box threads you agree with..

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

Chipping away piece by piece, compromise after compromise, first it's this gun, then it's that gun, then it is copycats, then eventually bb guns.
Believe what you want, I see the truth.
Their goal is a ban period, it may take generations but that is their goal. And if you don't see it, it is because you are blind, indoctrinated, brainwashed or too stupid to see the results of history. It has nothing to do with crying and everything to do with agenda and taking advantage of everytime there is a shooting.

Legislation by edict is unconstitutional.

are there some who wish to ban everything absolutely.. and then there are those like you thinks every one with out a gun wants to ban all guns and in both cases its a100% Per fantasy !!!

once again facts dont matter or support your claim if you don't see it, it is because you are blind, indoctrinated, brainwashed or too stupid to see the results of history.

your history is made up ! clearly your the one indoctrinated

Gun ownership in the US is at a 40-year low, but gun purchases are at an all-time high

The number of gun background checks is at a 14-year high
The percentage of Americans who are in a gun household hasn't dropped for 15 years and may be at 1970s levels

One of the main reasons for the decline in household firearm ownership is the decrease in the popularity
of hunting

BUT there coming for your guns

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Young cited a landmark 2008 Supreme Court decision that found that “weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like” are not protected under the Second Amendment and “may be banned.”


not sure why Conservatives only respect the law they want to respect I see this alot

It is obvious, to a "Conservative," that "weapons that are most useful in military service" are exactly what the Second Amendment prohibits the government from denying the people's right to own and carry.

It is obvious, to a "Conservative," that Progressive Judges have rendered verdicts which rewrite the words in and added others to, the Second Amendment, thus circumventing the proper Amendment process, in order to unconstitutionally legislate gun laws from the Bench.

"Conservatives" respect Constitutional law, not fiat law construed by Progressive judges.

[Sea Dangles]

I would really be excited to be living in the Chicago suburb that is being told it is illegal to possess an ar. But they are not coming for your guns.....a mere $1000 a day fine for refusing to turn them in.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

The nearby suburb of Highland Park passed a similar ban in 2013, which was contested as unconstitutional by one of the city's residents and the Illinois State Rifle Association. Ultimately, however, the ordinance was upheld in court.


you left out or removed from the town's limits. again they are not banning guns they are banning certain weapon

I support a person right to own a gun I do not support the theory the 2a allows you to have any gun you want .

and it seems the supreme court feels the same way

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It is obvious, to a "Conservative," that "weapons that are most useful in military service" are exactly what the Second Amendment prohibits the government from denying the people's right to own and carry.

It is obvious, to a "Conservative," that Progressive Judges have rendered verdicts which rewrite the words in and added others to, the Second Amendment, thus circumventing the proper Amendment process, in order to unconstitutionally legislate gun laws from the Bench.

"Conservatives" respect Constitutional law, not fiat law construed by Progressive judges.

look who wrote this shocking! or was his a closet progressive judge???

the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

look who wrote this shocking! or was his a closet progressive judge???

the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”

The rifles in common use, at the time, were military grade of that time--e.g., muskets.

[detbuch]

AR 15s are not military grade rifles.

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by detbuch

AR 15s are not military grade rifles.

Lmao
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by wdmso

are there some who wish to ban everything absolutely.. and then there are those like you thinks every one with out a gun wants to ban all guns and in both cases its a100% Per fantasy !!!

Those like me? I don't think so, you have the wrong guy.
I know plenty of people without guns who don't want a ban on guns and they support the Second Amendment. Some of them have their LTC but do not own a gun, YET. I am not sure how you can conclude that I think everyone without a gun wants them banned. You are making things up exaggerating obviously. You also don't take me seriously , so why should I take you seriously.

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I saw that one

I bet there are plenty more people who feel the same way.

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It is obvious, to a "Conservative," that "weapons that are most useful in military service" are exactly what the Second Amendment prohibits the government from denying the people's right to own and carry.

It is obvious, to a "Conservative," that Progressive Judges have rendered verdicts which rewrite the words in and added others to, the Second Amendment, thus circumventing the proper Amendment process, in order to unconstitutionally legislate gun laws from the Bench.

"Conservatives" respect Constitutional law, not fiat law construed by Progressive judges.

Plain as day obvious to people with a brain, not just conservatives.


This is exactly what AG Healy has done in this case and if they get away with this, what is next?

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by wdmso

local states cities refusing to do federal law enforcement job with out compensation and the term Sanctuaries city's was created by the Right who love to yell states rights again until they disagree

Under federal law, it is a crime for anyone to enter into the US without the approval of an immigration officer -- it's a misdemeanor offense that carries fines and no more than six months in prison.
Many foreign nationals, however, enter the country legally every day on valid work or travel visas, and end up overstaying for a variety of reasons.
But that's not a violation of federal criminal law -- it's a civil violation that gets handled in immigration court proceedings.

but please change the topic ...the law is clear in both cases and in both cases its the responsibility of law makers to fix or change the laws.

you just dont like push back comments.. on soap box threads you agree with..

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.


Yes - it is against the law. Full Stop.

So what is your point?

Originally Posted by Nebe

Lmao
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

95% of "AR" style sport rifles would not stand up to the duty cycles of issues combat rifles, ohh, and then that full auto thing too...