Mass. Supreme court overrules 2nd

[Dashman010]

I believe more than Massachusetts has the law requiring firearms to be locked up. I don't see how the ruling violates the SCOTUS ruling either.

Heller specifically said that you have a right to immediate access to a firearm, and therefore invalidated the trigger lock/disassembly provision of DC law.

"In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun
possession in the home violates the Second Amendment,
as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm
in the home operable for the purpose of immediate
self-defense."

Therefore, if SCOTUS were to incorporate the 2nd Amend against the states, a trigger lock requirement would not pass muster.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

There are limits on Free Speech. Standard example of yelling fire in a crowded bar.

I hear that all the time. My standard response is that yes you can yell fire in a crowded bar/theater/etc. I had a teacher in HS that did it, another student brought it up in a discussion. So he looked at them and yelled FIRE!! Then asked them what was illegal about that. The student said well we knew there wasn't a fire so that doesn't count, if you did it where people didn't know and they got hurt you could get in trouble. The teacher responded so it's not illegal to do it and there are no restrictions on it, but I can be held liable for the results, not the act of yelling fire.
Above is paraphrased.

Which is how it should be for all our rights, don't restrict our right to keep and bear arms of whatever type we wish, however we wish. But if it is misused, punish the results.

 

[T-rav]

Personally I dont see how states can ban or impose laws on the 2A. The 2nd states "to keep and bear arms"

Keep- To retain possession of
Bear- To carry from one place to another

Dont those two words keep the states from telling you what you can and cant do IF you are entitled to this right by being a law abiding citizen of America

The states can not touch the Bill of Rights, anything after the 10th is on a state level. The first 10 however is supposed to be protected by "we the people"

 

[WeAreNotAlone]

I wouldn't consider the government telling me I had to keep my guns locked up at home common sense. I don't think it is any of their darned business. Go after the criminals, leave me and my gun storage choices alone. And if the 2nd is incorporated against the States then I think it does violate it. To me, it is a clear cut infringement.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The problem going after Criminals, is Criminals shoot back.
I really wish those that are trying to disarm /restrict/tax/regulate or whatever you want to call it would do a little history research.

It is NOT a good thing when civilians are disarmed, arms are regulated highly. The 2nd amendment isn't about "sporting use", taking your gun to the range to target shoot, it's about giving the people the means to if the government becomes oppressive to forcefully remove them if needed.


I ran across these two links that i think everyone should read:

The Smallest Minority

DEATH BY GOVERNMENT: GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER

Except from first link:

For all the mayhem guns in civilian hands have caused, guns in the exclusive control of governments have resulted in far more. "Assault weapons" may not have much of a "sporting purpose," but the Second Amendment isn't about "sport." Judge Kozinski in his eloquent dissent to the denial of appeal for an en banc rehearing of Silveira explained it perfectly:

The majority falls prey to the delusion—popular in some circles - that ordinary people are too careless and stupid to own guns, and we would be far better off leaving all weapons in the hands of professionals on the government payroll. But the simple truth - born of experience - is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people.

--

All too many of the other great tragedies of history - Stalin’s atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few - were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.


My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed - where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.​