Civil Rights

[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...

[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..

[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.

[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.

[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.”

[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?

[ReelinRod]

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.”

Young's legal "reasoning" is laughable and is just an example of a leftist statist authoritarian grasping a straws.

Heller's statement that "if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, . . . " isn't comparing appearances, accessories or furniture, it is comparing the full-auto M-16 to other guns that fall under Title II of NFA-34.

The single characteristic that those guns share, making them both "bannable" and thus "like" each other, is the ability to fire more than one bullet with a single pull of the trigger.

That's it, full stop . . .

Collapsible stocks, pistol grips, removable magazines, barrel shrouds or flash hiders are NOT mentioned in NFA-34; NONE of those things are of any interest to ATF in determining what differentiates a Title II "banned" gun from a "legal" gun.

This Massachusetts district opinion is just an example of what is to be expected from liberal judges -- lie, cheat and misrepresent and in the end, violate their oaths to the Constitution and dishonor their office.


.