Article Image
News Link • Constitution

Massachusetts SJC rules 2nd Amendment does not apply to states

This isn't legal! And from the Boston Tea Party state! WTF! The right to bear arms as defined in the Second Amendment does not apply to the states, so Massachusetts can regulate who can have firearms and how those weapons are to be stored, the state's high court ruled Wednesday.

2 Comments in Response to

Comment by Jerry Hyde
Entered on:

That the the 2nd Amendment is an "individual "right" that cannot be abridged by the United States or State government is a statement that is very easily defensible by citation of the "wording" and "spelling" of the 2nd, 9th, and 10th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. The case, upper or lower, used in spelling within the Constitution is of extreme importance in the understanding of what is written there. For instance ... "We, the People," "We" is collective (it would have been in spelled in upper case anyway), however "People" is upper case and refers to "all" the people. This is a consistent treatment throughout the document. Our Founders did not write the Constitution for lawyers but for the people thus they wrote clearly, concisely, precisely and briefly. They did not need 3000 pages of lies to create a Nation; they needed only a few pages of Truth.

10th Amendment: "... nor prohibited by it to the States, ...." i.e., PROHIBITIONS declared within the Constitution of the United States apply equally to the States unless specifically directed otherwise. Evidently our educational system is indeed a failure since it appears that many people, especially lawmakers, do not seem to know how to read this short, simple, concise statement properly.

2nd Amendment:  "..., the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." i.e., (1) it is clearly a PROHIBITION; (2) the lower case "people" indicates it applies to the INDIVIDUAL and not the collective of individuals otherwise it would have been spelled People; and (3) it is also enumerated as a RIGHT (of the individual).  

9th Amendment: just to reiterate that "rights" do not have to be "enumerated to be retained by the people (lower case, applies to the individual). It was understood by our Founders that all "rights" were were "natural rights" that could not be taken away by the government, United States or State, nor relinquished by the people either for themselves or others." All "rights" do not stem from the government but from God, i.e., "natural law".


Comment by Kenneth Rineer
Entered on:


That is exactly correct. The Second Amendment, nor any other for that matter, never applied to the States under the founders' theory of the Republics. Constitutions do not create rights. Our rights are inherent as a birthright. The issue in Chicago, Massachusetts and elsewhere is not a problem the feds need to enter, it is a problem between the people and their state. The people need to get up off their ass and fight with their State legislatures like we have in Arizona for over the last 10 years! Btw, how's that incorporation theory working for the Fourth Amendment? Just sayin'.

Join us on our Social Networks:


Share this page with your friends on your favorite social network: