Exercise Your 2A Rights, Lose Your 4A Rights

So demands a town in Massachusetts. In recent years, it seems like in places where the left runs things, it’s being treated less and less like a right than it was before the Heller and McDonald rulings.

The selectman said state law requires Massachusetts gun owners to keep their firearms locked away or rendered inoperable.

The problem, he said, is that police do not have the authority, granted by a local ordinance, to enforce the law and inspect the safeguarding of guns at the homes of the 600 registered gun owners in town.

To channel Glenn Reynolds: tar and feathers. This is police state level stuff. If I lived in this town, I’d already be planning the lawsuit.

UPDATE: More from Days of our Trailers on this topic.

11 thoughts on “Exercise Your 2A Rights, Lose Your 4A Rights”

  1. Correct me if in wrong, but weren’t multiple state laws outlawing sodomy struck down on the basis of privacy implications of the actual enforcement the law? How is this any different? Because GUNS. MA citizens shouldn’t take this one lying down.

    1. Mass law says that it must be safely stored when the adult is in the house. When you are home you can have it accessible. I believe the Mass courts upheld this.

      1. Well there is a link to the MA law in question. By my reading of it, the law requires all firearms to be locked up and inoperable under all conditions, except one; when the firearm is carried or under the direct control of the owner. That exception is the only fig leaf which makes the MA law different from the law struck down in the DC v Heller decision. And in my opinion it is a fig leaf which would not stand up to scrutiny by the Supreme Court.

        IMHO that Massachusetts safe-storage law violates the 2nd and 14th amendments to the US Constitution.

    2. What 4th amendment? – ALL of Massachusetts is in the 4th amendment free zone! ( That’s why innocent families can be dragged out of their homes at gunpoint while their homes are searched – no warrant needed )

  2. US Constitution, Article 4, Section 4: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.”

    A city using threat of force to enter a home without a warrant meets the definition of domestic violence.

    1. Good point. However, does that mean that Bostonians would have to wait for their governor or legislature to petition the federals to stop Boston police from warrantlessly invading homes? I won’t hold my breath waiting for that to happen. It would take less time to fight it in court.

      Btw, did any Bostonians challenge those invasions in court?

      – Arnie

Comments are closed.