Massachusetts now hit with a Bruen case

Good day all. The Supreme Court’s upholding of the 2^nd Amendment and instructing courts to follow the literal wording of the amendment has been reverberating around the progressive liberal states. New York is about to get sued again for essentially ignoring the ruling. Now the People’s Republic of Taxachusetts has just hit by the Bruen decision.

Massachusetts has a long history of denying the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, which is surprising since this is the state where the first shots of the American Revolution were fired. Of course, back then, Massachusetts wasn’t run by a pack of hard left moonbats who are terrified that one day, the residents of the Commonwealth might decide to emulate their ancestors in regards to state sponsored tyranny,

Massachusetts is one of the states that requires that you get permission to exercise your 2^nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. You have to have a Firearms ID card just to own a gun. There is a separate requirement for carrying one, and you are limited in the amount of ammunition your firearm may contain.

In this case, it appears that the person, Alfred V. Morin, had a permit to carry, but stupidly went into Washington D.C. When he saw a no guns allowed sing, he asked where he should check his pistol. Instead, the D.C. Stormtroopers arrested him. According to an article in Soldier of Fortune:

In 2004, Mr. Alfred Morin was a resident of Massachusetts and had a license to carry in the state. Morin traveled from his home state of Massachusetts to the District of Columbia to visit his daughter. When Morin entered the American Museum of Modern History, he saw a sign prohibiting firearms, and approached a guard asking him where he could store his weapon while in the museum. He was promptly arrested by the D.C. Police and charged with carrying a pistol without a license, possession of an unregistered firearm, and unlawful possession of ammunition.

Morin was found guilty, and sentenced to 60 days in prison on each count as well as 90 days of supervised probation, and 20 hours of community service. The sentence was suspended under a plea deal.

Washington D.C. is even worse when it comes to the 2^nd Amendment. The mistake Mr. Morin made was assuming that there was a reciprocity agreement between the commonwealth of Massachusetts and the District of Colombia. This is where the problems began back in the People’s Republic.

Under Massachusetts law, if you are convicted of a nonviolent misdemeanor that involves a firearm in any fashion, you are allowed to obtain a Permit to Possess a weapon after five years from the conviction. However, you are banned for life from obtaining a state issued Permit to Purchase a weapon. That means the only way you can obtain a firearm is by inheriting one.

Basically, the law says “Sure you can have a permit, it just won’t do you any good.” The law was upheld initially and also on appeal. The excuse was that “You can always inherit a gun even if you can’t buy one in Massachusetts.”

Another issue is the appeals court use of intermediate scrutiny, which is simply an excuse for a judge to take away more of your constitutional rights. The issue of intermediate scrutiny where the court decides to make law based on balancing the interests of the government is unconstitutional, and was already addressed in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen.

This is where the appeal to the Supreme Court came in. In another article on this from Just The News:

The Supreme Court, however, this week ordered the ruling vacated, and the case “remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for further consideration” in lights of its decision earlier this year in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen.

“The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the majority opinion.

“We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need,” he added.

This is yet another case that the Supreme Court has sent back down to the lower courts and basically told them to pull their heads out of their posteriors and try reading the Constitution and the 2^nd Amendment. I suspect that we will soon see an end to FID cards, and anything that requires you to get permission to own and lawfully carry a firearm. Eventually, it’s possible that the entire house of cards will collapse and the National Firearms Act will be ruled unconstitutional as well. We shall see of course.

Thatisall

(12 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

Loading...

~The Angry Webmaster~