Men surrounded for exercising Second Amendment rights.

[pknopp]

Just because I travel through another state that right does not end.

No one says it does.

And there’s that pesky states’ rights thing again: state and local governments are at liberty to enact firearm regulatory measures consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Had those arrested bothered to obtain temporary, non-resident licenses, they’d be in Maine right now with their fellow ‘sovereign citizens.’

States do not have the right to restrict a constitutionally acknowledged right.

 

[pknopp]

People (rightly) bitch about roadblocks put up to make voting harder but then will defend roadblocks here.

There’s little difference between registering to vote and obtaining a license to possess a firearm – both the right to vote and right to possess a firearm are subject to reasonable regulations.

What’s unreasonable is bad faith measures enacted to place an undue burden on the right to vote – MA doesn’t place limits on when a resident may apply for a firearm license, MA doesn’t eliminate venues where residents can apply for a firearm license, and MA doesn’t require gun owners to provide ID every time a resident goes to the gun range.

MA is placing restrictions on whether or not citizens of the United States can exercise their rights in that state.

They do not have that right.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The argument is that you have to get permission from a state to exercise your Constitutionally guarantee right.

One must get permission from a state to exercise your Constitutionally guarantee right to vote.

One must get permission from a state to exercise your Constitutionally guarantee right to assemble peaceably.

Certainly you’re not arguing that requiring citizens to register to vote or obtain a permit to hold a political rally are un-Constitutional.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

States do not have the right to restrict a constitutionally acknowledged right.

All governments have the authority to place limits and restrictions on our rights consistent Constitutional case law, reflecting the will of the people, in accordance with our democratic institutions.

That you don’t like this settled, accepted fact of law doesn’t make it untrue.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

roadblock.

...as a metaphor.

 

[pknopp]

The argument is that you have to get permission from a state to exercise your Constitutionally guarantee right.

One must get permission from a state to exercise your Constitutionally guarantee right to vote.

One must get permission from a state to exercise your Constitutionally guarantee right to assemble peaceably.

Certainly you’re not arguing that requiring citizens to register to vote or obtain a permit to hold a political rally are un-Constitutional.

No you do not have to get permission. The Constitution notes you get one vote. You register to make sure you only exercise that one vote.

 

[pknopp]

States do not have the right to restrict a constitutionally acknowledged right.

All governments have the authority to place limits and restrictions on our rights consistent Constitutional case law, reflecting the will of the people, in accordance with our democratic institutions.

That you don’t like this settled, accepted fact of law doesn’t make it untrue.

Nothing can be done outside of due process. As I noted, places like Chicago and D.C. once thought they could restrict people's 2nd Amendment rights. They were told they could not.

 

[struth]

If it's unlawful to possess a firearm we have no 2nd Amendment rights.

Nonsense.

It’s not unlawful to possess a firearm – some jurisdictions require a license to do so; a requirement perfectly consistent with the Second Amendment.

The 2nd Amendment gives all citizens the right to own a gun. Just because I travel through another state that right does not end.

People (rightly) bitch about roadblocks put up to make voting harder but then will defend roadblocks here.

The article doesn't say this was a roadblock.

Which is irrelevant. The argument is that you have to get permission from a state to exercise your Constitutionally guarantee right.

i am not sure where you are getting that based on the facts here?

The question we need to know is what happened when the officer approached the men or there after before the arrest and the eluding

 

[Anathema]

ad those arrested bothered to obtain temporary, non-resident licenses, they’d be in Maine right now with their fellow ‘sovereign citizens.’

A Massachusetts Non-Resident Class A LTC is one of those wonderful objects that exists in law but not in the real world.

In my 20+ years being around the shooting and self-defense communities here in Massachusetts, I have never even heard of one being issued, never mind seen one. Massachusetts is a “may issue” not a “shall issue” state.

 

[Anathema]

The question we need to know is what happened when the officer approached the men or there after before the arrest and the eluding

Local news out of Boston has reported that when the officer was informed the individuals had neither drivers licenses/ID nor firearms licenses he immediately requested backup. At that point the majority of the group chose to move into the woods.

 

[pknopp]

If it's unlawful to possess a firearm we have no 2nd Amendment rights.

Nonsense.

It’s not unlawful to possess a firearm – some jurisdictions require a license to do so; a requirement perfectly consistent with the Second Amendment.

The 2nd Amendment gives all citizens the right to own a gun. Just because I travel through another state that right does not end.

People (rightly) bitch about roadblocks put up to make voting harder but then will defend roadblocks here.

The article doesn't say this was a roadblock.

Which is irrelevant. The argument is that you have to get permission from a state to exercise your Constitutionally guarantee right.

i am not sure where you are getting that based on the facts here?

The question we need to know is what happened when the officer approached the men or there after before the arrest and the eluding

There may be other factors but so far they are not present.

 

[struth]

The question we need to know is what happened when the officer approached the men or there after before the arrest and the eluding

Local news out of Boston has reported that when the officer was informed the individuals had neither drivers licenses/ID nor firearms licenses he immediately requested backup. At that point the majority of the group chose to move into the woods.

oh so...there was proper reason to arrest the folks.

 

[struth]

If it's unlawful to possess a firearm we have no 2nd Amendment rights.

Nonsense.

It’s not unlawful to possess a firearm – some jurisdictions require a license to do so; a requirement perfectly consistent with the Second Amendment.

The 2nd Amendment gives all citizens the right to own a gun. Just because I travel through another state that right does not end.

People (rightly) bitch about roadblocks put up to make voting harder but then will defend roadblocks here.

The article doesn't say this was a roadblock.

Which is irrelevant. The argument is that you have to get permission from a state to exercise your Constitutionally guarantee right.

i am not sure where you are getting that based on the facts here?

The question we need to know is what happened when the officer approached the men or there after before the arrest and the eluding

There may be other factors but so far they are not present.

and that's why the piece is poorly written, and frankly too quick to make some sort of jump to conclusion.

 

[Anathema]

oh so...there was proper reason to arrest the folks.

There was definitely a more than acceptable cause for detention and investigation.

The trooper didn’t pull them over. He stopped to do a safety and wellness check on two vehicles in the breakdown lane with their hazard lights on.

 

[pknopp]

oh so...there was proper reason to arrest the folks.

There was definitely a more than acceptable cause for detention and investigation.

The trooper didn’t pull them over. He stopped to do a safety and wellness check on two vehicles in the breakdown lane with their hazard lights on.

And having explained that one car had ran out of gas it was time to move on.

 

[Anathema]

struth l

And having explained that one car had ran out of gas it was time to move on

Even if we were to ignore the firearms violations…..

None of the 11 individuals had a valid ID or Driver's License. THAT alone would be sufficient to detain the entire group. Especially since two of them are now charged with giving incorrect names/identities to the police.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

oh so...there was proper reason to arrest the folks.

There was definitely a more than acceptable cause for detention and investigation.

The trooper didn’t pull them over. He stopped to do a safety and wellness check on two vehicles in the breakdown lane with their hazard lights on.

And having explained that one car had ran out of gas it was time to move on.

No..it was not. How stupid a cop would have to be to ignore the lack of the right to drive and the refusal to prove their legal right to bear arms. Unless you are proposing that LEA assume the legality of every armed individual? Are they even citizens? Any of them ex-cons? Why did they run?
Your premise is insupportable....the 2nd does not exempt people from questioning and once they ran...they guaranteed their arrest. All the yammering about the Constitution changes nothing...their attitude hung them. Fuck 'sovereign citizens'...this is the US..and ALL are subject to our laws...this applies on the state level as well.

 

[pknopp]

struth l

And having explained that one car had ran out of gas it was time to move on

Even if we were to ignore the firearms violations…..

None of the 11 individuals had a valid ID or Driver's License. THAT alone would be sufficient to detain the entire group. Especially since two of them are now charged with giving incorrect names/identities to the police.

I've read nothing of the sort. All the same, only two needed one.

 

[danielpalos]

Lately the argument is that we really do not have 2nd Amendment rights and I do not see the biggest supporters of the 2nd Amendment doing a darn thing about this.

Massachusetts police responding to group of 'heavily armed men' claiming to 'not recognize our laws'

It appears a group of men ran out of gas and while refueling a police officer stopped. He arrested two of them and the rest fled into the woods. I'm missing an important aspect here. What did they do that was illegal to start with?

This could be one reason:

The incident took place around 1:30 a.m. when a state trooper came across a group of people refueling on the side of the I-95 highway in Wakefield, a suburb of Boston. The group was dressed in military-style uniforms, carried tactical gear like body cameras and helmets and had long guns slung over their shoulders.

 

[pknopp]

oh so...there was proper reason to arrest the folks.

There was definitely a more than acceptable cause for detention and investigation.

The trooper didn’t pull them over. He stopped to do a safety and wellness check on two vehicles in the breakdown lane with their hazard lights on.

And having explained that one car had ran out of gas it was time to move on.

No..it was not. How stupid a cop would have to be to ignore the lack of the right to drive and the refusal to prove their legal right to bear arms. Unless you are proposing that LEA assume the legality of every armed individual? Are they even citizens? Any of them ex-cons? Why did they run?
Your premise is insupportable....the 2nd does not exempt people from questioning and once they ran...they guaranteed their arrest. All the yammering about the Constitution changes nothing...their attitude hung them. Fuck 'sovereign citizens'...this is the US..and ALL are subject to our laws...this applies on the state level as well.

As much as many want it to be, attitude is not an arrestable offense.