WTF Massachusetts? Constitution doesn't apply to the state?
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/03/_in_a...
By John R. Ellement and Martin Finucane, Globe Staff
In a case that had drawn attention from the Gun Owners Action League and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the Supreme Judicial Court today upheld a state law requiring trigger locks on guns kept in people's homes.
In a victory for law enforcement and advocates of gun control, the state's highest court ruled that the Second Amendment does not currently apply to states and therefore Massachusetts has the power to regulate gun ownership.
"We conclude that the legal obligation safely to secure firearms in [state law] is not unconstitutional,'' Justice Ralph Gants wrote for the unanimous court.
In a companion ruling, it upheld the convictions of a New Bedford man who had argued that the Second Amendment right to bear arms trumped state law making it a crime for an unlicensed person to have a handgun.
The unanimous decisions by the SJC flowed from a landmark ruling by the US Supreme Court in 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller. The Supreme Court said for the first time in that case that the US Constitution's Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own a firearm for self-defense, but the court limited the reach of its ruling to "federal enclaves'' like the District.
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a gun ownership case in Illinois in which, legal experts say, the court is likely to determine whether the Second Amendment will now be explicitly extended to the states – and state laws and regulations set up to control the use, sale and storage of firearms.
Continue:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/03/_in_a...
2nd Amendment applies to the states
It is a right of the people, period. The 10th amendment tells states they have all other powers that are not also restricted by the constitution. This means that the constitution also binds the states to rights possessed by the people expressed in the constitution. Therefore, since the right bear arms is an individual right then the states are subject to the 2nd amendment.
_________________
Want Ron Paul? Register Republican Now
What About the Supremacy Clause?
Article Six of the US Constitution might be in disagreement with Massachusetts' opinion. After they read Article Six they should read the Second Amendment. Websters defines infringe as "to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another." While the state might make a law describing a "legal obligation safely to secure firearms", where do they get the authority to define the means? How secure is secure?
Application of the Constitution and its subordinate laws
Does this logic hold?
If the Second amendment of the constitution does not apply to the Union States but only to the United states (read D.C. and the protectorates) then does any aspect of the constitution? I do not see how the Constitution applies like food in a cafeteria where one gets to order what one like and disregard the rest.
So, If one aspect of the Constitution does not apply to the Union States then None of it does. And If none of it does, then no law derived from it (much less without it) by the United States can apply either.
This seems to me to be very interesting territory.
~ The only legitimate purpose for government is to administer the protection of liberty for all the people. Any other purpose leads to the destruction of liberty.
- Middlesex County, Massachusetts
I agree, the Second Amendment DOES apply to the states
The Constitutional amendments that limit the federal government all begin with "Congress shall make no law...".
Massachussetts lawmakers should remember what happened at Lexington and Concord when the British Redcoats attempted to disarm the citizens.
That's right, the government gets to declare what 'law' is
And you get to like it, or else.
When will those of you who still believe in the fairy tale get it?
No, the US Constitution does not apply to the MA legislature.
At least not technically. The Bill of Rights was a check on what the FEDERAL govt could do. It had no bearing on the states originally. For example an individual state COULD establish a state religion...and MAss had one for many years.
The problem is that since other amendments now are applied not only to state but to local governments, the same should be true for the 2nd amendment as well. If a state or local govt may no longer establish a particualr denomination as its religion, then that same state or locality should not be able to restrict 2nd amendment rights as well. THERE is the real problem.
It most certainly does apply to the States.
At least where it specifically says so, or where context makes it obvious that it means so.
The first ten amendments though traditionally thought of as a "bill of rights" are in Constitutional jurisprudence not different than any other amendment. The First amendment specifically states "Congress shall make no law..." So that amendment DOES specifically limit itself to Congress and not the State legislatures. However, the 1st amendment has since been applied to the States via the 14th amendment with respect to federal citizens. I don't know of any State constitution which does not contain its own protections of the freedoms of Speech, Religion, Assembly, or Petition, so the point on that amendment is really moot.
The Second Amendment has no such limiting language. It simply recognizes the right to keep and bear Arms, states the reason for its protection, and then declares that it "shall not be infringed." There is no stipulation that this prohibition on infringement is limited merely to Congress or other branch of the general government. There is also no reason to glean from the context of the original Constitution, that any additional prohibitions of power, or protection of liberty, need by necessarily narrowly interpreted as applying only to Congress. There are several clauses of the original Constitution that apply to the States. Additionally, the Supremacy Clause in Article VI would tend to answer any question of a State not being affected by the Second Amendment.
In fact, Article 1 § 8 Clause 16 specifically grants to Congress the power "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia..." A statute concerning "safety" of Arms constitutes "disciplining of the Militia," so this is a power of Congress, and NOT within the purview of the State legislatures. The States have the authority to train the Militia, but according to the discipline set by Congress.
The Second Amendment modifies this power and the authority of the States with respect to the Militia, by prohibiting any action by either of them which would infringe on the right of the People to keep and bear Arms. (no law, federal OR State, could so regulate the safe keeping of Arms so as to prevent anyone from keeping or bearing such Arms, which is exactly what this Massachusetts law does)
Sorry but States should be able to do as their people wish...
(within the bounds of their state's constitution) If you don't like it move to another state which secures your rights under it's constitution. The country was founded upon the freedom of the people and thus the states, each state should be able to determine their own destiny irrespective of the behemoth which has usurped everyone's power. The states which value individual liberty and shun government intervention will see mass immigration along with job growth and prosperity... (IMHO this scares progressives more than anything)
The Liberty a society retains is inversely proportional to the number of Lawyers in the Government.
That is generally correct. But this is a case where there is a
blanket protection of the right to keep and bear Arms irrespective of which State you live in. And the Second Amendment specifically states WHY this protection is in place.
Would you claim the States do not have to follow Article 1 § 10 either?
Wrong, 2nd Amendment applies to states
it clearly give people the right to bear arms. And the 10th amendment clearly says that states are also limited to things in the constitution such as a persons rights.
_________________
Want Ron Paul? Register Republican Now
No GOD gives people rights...govts are there to protect rights.
The 2nd amendment is a LIMITATION on the federal govt. Says nothing about states or localities. The constitution has nothing to say about whether an individual state may or may not limit such a right.
My point is however, that with the horrible 14th amendment and its application to states and localities, if other freedoms are protected from state and localities by other amendments, then it should also apply to the 2nd as well.
The application of some of the first ten amendments to the
States via the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment are limited to that class of citizens delineated by the first section of that 14th amendment - aka Federal citizens.
If you are not subject, and the SCOTUS has ruled that this means subject COMPLETELY, to federal jurisdiction, then you are NOT a "citizen of the United States" as defined by the 14th amendment. You are however a Citizen of the several States by virtue of your birth in one of them. There are two distinct classes of citizens, and the Supreme Court has recognized this fact repeatedly.
The Court has also noted that "rights" of Federal citizens are very limited and do NOT include all of the rights inherent to Citizens of the several States. Additionally, these "rights" are civil in nature and not inalienable, and so can be granted or denied at will of the United States. (singular - since as their citizen you are COMPLETELY subject to their {again, singular} jurisdiction)
Check out my other reply with respect to the nature of the wording of the 1st and 2nd Amendments, as well as A1§8C16 which shows that at least in this case, Massachusetts has NO authority in this area.