| BACK |
The Right to Bear Arms Infringed
in Massachusetts
1. For the people to grant to a national government a specific set of well defined and limited powers, and
As originally framed (prior to the addition of the Bill of Rights), the Constitution gave the new government no powers to effect any control whatsoever on the private ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens. When Jefferson and others criticized the new Constitution for not including a Bill of Rights (similar to those adopted by many of the rebelling colonies in the 1770s), it was argued that a Bill of Rights was not necessary since the national government couldn’t infringe our basic rights; it was only granted the powers outlined in the Constitution and NO OTHERS. As Alexander Hamilton asked rhetorically, “Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?” Of course, Hamilton didn’t mean that the government didn’t physically have the power to infringe our rights. He took the fact that the government was not granted these powers as the metaphysical equivalent of not having the power to do so. In essence he believed and fully expected that the government would be constrained by a strict interpretation of the powers granted to it in the Constitution. While others shared Hamilton’s understanding of the intent of the Constitution, they did not share his trust that the government wouldn’t stray beyond its legitimate powers (Oh ye of little faith!). And thus was born our Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was intended to provide, not the first line of defense, but the second line of defense against government abuses of our most important individual freedoms ... not all our rights, just those the Founding Fathers thought were so critical that they should be specifically enumerated … just in case the government lost sight of the fact that its only powers were those granted to it in the Constitution. A reminder of this thought process is the Ninth Amendment that, in plain English, states, “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” So what rights did our Founding Fathers decide we needed both a belt and suspenders to protect? The first eight amendments list the rights that were so precious to those considering ratification of the new Constitution, that they threatened to not ratify the Constitution if they were not specifically enumerated. Second on this list of critical rights, following only the First Amendment guarantees for religion, speech, press, assembly, and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, was “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” … which the amendment states “shall not be infringed” [i.e., shall not be disregarded, violated, trespassed, or encroached1]. Those who advocate destruction of our Second Amendment rights like to point to the “well regulated militia” preamble to the amendment to claim that the Second Amendment establishes the “right” of the government to form armed militias and does not protect individual rights. But this claim is preposterous to anyone who has studied word usage of the period or the mindset of the Founding Fathers. The term “rights” is always used in conjunction with individuals or the people (as in the first, second, and fourth amendments), and never used in the case of the government. When granting the government the ability to perform some function, the Founding Fathers always used the term “powers” (as in “the powers not delegated to the United States” in the Tenth Amendment). In any case, the main body of the Constitution already provides for the arming of a militia2: “The Congress shall have the Power … To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia …”. Why on earth would the Founding Fathers think it necessary to list the “right” of the militia to be armed when the Constitution already provided for it? None of the other amendments are redundant to powers already provided for in the body of the Constitution. When you consider the motivation for the Bill of Rights [the paranoia concerning the trampling of individual liberties by King George, the British, and governments in general], re-stating the government’s “Power” to arm a militia was the least of their concerns. The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental individual right that cannot be infringed, under the Constitution, by either the Federal government or the state governments any more than can our right to freely exercise our religion or our rights of free speech or the press. The states cannot ignore the fundamental rights outlined in our Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment is no exception. So what has Massachusetts done with regards to our right to keep and bear arms? In essence it has ignored the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and has done everything it can to disregard, violate, trespass, and encroach on our right to keep and bear arms … everything short of an outright prohibition. Massachusetts gun laws are
elaborate and complex. For now, I will spare the reader a
blow-by-blow summary (at least not all in one sitting).
Future articles will detail specific egregious provision
of the current Massachusetts firearms law [Chapter 180 of
the Acts of 1998] related to such things as: Ø Related
onerous enforcement provisions, Amazingly, a reduction of over 95% occurred after Chapter 180’s provisions were passed! Did over 95% of those who desired to own a firearm in Massachusetts before Chapter 180 was passed just up and decide that they no longer wanted to own a firearm anymore? Or was it the new law that effectively infringed their rights protected by the Constitution and then doubly protected under the Second Amendment? For those who think that such a reduction is not alarming or who are unsure whether this reduction is indicative of infringement, I suggest you consider an analogous situation with our First Amendment rights. What if groups of citizens and legislators, who openly disparaged our First Amendment rights, passed legislation requiring burdensome registration or permits for conducting church services or for publishing newspapers and magazines? What if, shortly thereafter, 95% of church services were cancelled and 95% of the nations newspapers and magazines discontinued operations? What if the number of church services held and newspapers published was still down 87% three or four years later? Would you be concerned? This is exactly what has occurred with regard to your Second Amendment rights. One last observation: It is likely that the vast majority of the more than 1.3 million Massachusetts citizens that were licensed in 1997 and were not in 2001 (or now) … still have guns in their possession. While I think that is good, the legislature does not (i.e., it is in violation of current Massachusetts law). Consequently, these 1.3 million citizens are subject to criminal penalties. Violators are subject to jail sentences of over 2 years and, because possession without a license is a “weapons violation”, the violator becomes permanently ineligible for a firearms license. Welcome to Massachusetts. Check your guns and your Second Amendment rights at the border. You are now “Second Class” citizens and you no longer have the rights that the colonists had under King George. (Footnotes) You can email your comments to ValleyPatriot@aol.com |
The United States Constitution was written to
accomplish two purposes: