Six Massachusetts residents, backed by a gun-rights group, are suing four police chiefs, arguing that restrictions the chiefs place on gun licenses violate Second Amendment rights.
A state law allows police to issue licenses to carry guns with restrictions limiting their use to sporting reasons, hunting, or target practice.
Comments
Weymouth make no qualms about the fact that they only issue restricted licenses (hunting and target shooting). This is ridiculous and every chief n the general vicinity of Weymouth agrees. with this restriction surviving multiple chiefs, I guess no Chief wants to be the one to lift it. Complete mularkey.
Where does the second amendment speak of self-defense?
Human beings have a natural born right to defend themselves. You could say it is a birth right. It is not granted by a government, therefore, no government has the power to deny it. The 2A amendment only serves to memorialize that the government cannot remove a persons right to self defense by means of a firearm.
People get confused on this issue constantly.
If you were to get attacked, in a fight for your life, you would want to use every means at your disposal to protect it, or your families life. Government has no right to limit your capabilities in that regard.
Please do not toss out the ridiculous "nuclear", "bazooka" options, they are just stupid.
Salem...... Please! Where does the First speak about FaceBook or Twitter? C'mon now, the Individual right to Bear Arms or text nastygrams is something that reasonable people can and should agree on. If not, we need to be ready to rush back to quill pens, wigs and the right to own another person.
A high school kid who feels threatened in school should have the right to carry a gun, right? Doesn't the Second Amendment protect a high school student? We hear a lot about bullying but not enough about the obvious solution, right? Right?
This comment has been removed.
Nahant: As high school kids are still minors, and as minors we do not view them as being able to make responsible decisions, they are what might be considered a special class of citizen. The law certainly deals with them differently for the most part. But you do bring up a good point, as adults we have a duty to see to their security. With the bullying going on, that is not working out very well.
This article brings up one of the very obvious problems of Mass gun laws. We are not all equal under it. Simple as that.
What it did not bring up was that many holders of LTC's (license to carry) are afraid to speak out on virtually any issue for fear of reprisal. The reprisal comes in the form of having the LTC revoked. Once revoked, the gun owner must surrender ALL weapons, pay for exorbitant storage fees, seek to get a court hearing, etc.
Arguing with a police officer about anything could cause a revocation. Disagreeing with any city official could cause it. Demonstrating for a cause that city fathers do not like could cause it.
The power granted to the Police Chief to issue/revoke these licenses is ripe for abuse. It is already being abused by cities that take almost a year to issue a license when the state law says it will done in 40 days.
If this sort of thing were done with drivers licenses, the people of the state would be tar and feathering the legislators. Imagine having to be finger printed, your background checked, then sit around and wait until the police department was good and darned ready to issue you a license (maybe a year) and then have one handed to you that said "good only during daylight hours" because that is all we issue in this town. If you don't like it, move to a different town.
Frankly, the liberals of this state are lucky the gun owners are a bunch of really nice patient people. If I were the liberals, I would quit insulting them and blaming them for the gun violence.
This comment has been removed.
WE are not the bad guys. Of course anti-gun liberals think an inanimate object is evil because they can not except the fact that the govt., State or local Police are not there to protect you. You're on your own until the Police arrive, which is to late for many victims of violent crime. Remember, it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
This comment has been removed.
Chief Oulette of Danvers: ‘‘That’s a substantial impact when you grant someone that right to go any place in society with a loaded firearm,’’
Just exactly what was the legislature thinking when they wrote a law that allows Chief Oulette to think that he has the power to "grant" rights? Moreover, they gave Chiefs this power based on the concept of "suitability". There is no definition of what "suitability" means in Mass Gen Law, that is left up to the discretion of Police Chiefs.
In the Declaration of Independence, it clearly states that:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life...."
Notice that these rights are "unalienable" and they are endowed by the Creator, not the State of Massachusetts, or a Police Chief in some town. These rights are also self evident, they need no explanation or justification.
The very first right listed is LIFE. Having a right to life also means having a right to protect it, defend it. The 2A limits the government from preventing people arming themselves, it does not grant any rights. It does not speak about hunting, target shooting, what type of "arms", etc. It does speak about "bearing" arms, carrying them.
The legislature in this state has obviously been bullied into passing laws that fly in the face of human rights, namely, the right to life and the ability to protect it. Moreover, they have created the means by which a mere Police Chief can easily discriminate against anyone at anytime. When that occurs, the victim must, at his own expense, seek redress in a court of law to prove that the Chief violated his rights via an unconstitutional law. It doesn't get much worse than that.
That is what is going on right now with these court cases. In the vast majority of the states in this country, it would not be possible to file these suits, because these ridiculous laws do not exist. It is disgusting to think that here in Massachusetts, where Freedom was born, this type of law was enacted by legislators who could not comprehend the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
This comment has been removed.