Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual right to posses a firearm in the home for the purpose of self defense. See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).\u00a0 And the Fourteenth Amendment provides: \u201cNo State shall … deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law\u201d. U.S. Const. amend IV.\u00a0\u00a0 The court held that the the Second Amendment \u201cis fully applicable against the States.\u201d McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).<\/p>\n
Massachusetts is famous for being one of the most toughest states in regulating firearms. Just by looking at the M.L. Section 131: Licenses to carry firearms; conditions and restrictions says a lot.\u00a0 The law begins not with rights; it sets out restrictions.\u00a0 In other words, M.G.L. c. 140 \u00a7131 authorizes a licensing authority to place restrictions on the license, preventing the licensee from lawfully carrying a handgun on his person outside of his home.\u00a0 Residents of Massachusetts must obtain a license to both purchase and possess firearms, ammunition, and feeding devices. M.G.L. c. 140, \u00a7\u00a7 129C, 131, 131E, c269 \u00a7 10.\u00a0 Under M.G.L. c. 140, \u00a7 129B., a Firearms Identification Card is a \u201cshall-issue\u201d license, if an applicant meets statutory requirements.<\/p>\n
Local Police Chiefs\/Commissioners administer firearms licensing for any person residing or having a place of business within the jurisdiction of the licensing authority. M.G.L. c. 140, \u00a7\u00a7 121, 129B, and 131.\u00a0 Most of the time, the judge sides with the police deeming a petitioner who has had small indiscretions with the law in his or her teens and now a business owner and\/or has a family, too dangerous to ever exercise their right to protect themselves and their loved ones.
\nPolitics and money create a legal system reflecting the society.\u00a0 Question comes to mind is how the right became a restricted permit?\u00a0 In simple terms, some people are so scared of guns and gun violence that they would rather have no protection for themselves and others thinking they will be insulated by circumstances others aren\u2019t as fortunate.<\/p>\n
The police aren\u2019t at our beck and call nor should they be.\u00a0 Many folks working in law enforcement put their lives on a line to protect us and do their best.\u00a0 They do reserve the right to protect themselves first and exercise their discretion whether the call is a true emergency.\u00a0 Police also can be very busy and cannot arrive fast enough.\u00a0 In 2005, U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Police doesn\u2019t have a constitutional duty to protect.\u00a0 See Castle Rock v. Gonzales,<\/em> 545 U.S. 748 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, 7\u20132 (Alito and Ginsberg dissented), that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. \u00a71983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman’s three children that the estranged husband kidnapped earlier during the day and the police used their discretion and ignored a judge who ordered restraining order.<\/p>\n Without going into analysis as to how and why the children were kidnapped with an active restraining order that police chose to ignore and argument that restraining orders are given out too easily, the judge ordered it, the order was in place and the system failed Mrs. Gonzales who did everything right to protect herself and her children.\u00a0 This means that while a criminal element doesn\u2019t care to obtain firearms legally, you are on your own!<\/p>\n By Margarita Smirnova \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states: \u201cA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the\u00a0 people to keep and bear\u00a0 Arms, shall not be infringed. U.S. Const. amend II.\u201d Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual right to posses a firearm in …<\/p>\n
\nCall: (617)398-7482
\nE-mail: margarita.smirnova@gmail.com
\nThis post is for informational and educational use only and does not create attorney-client relationship.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"