Men surrounded for exercising Second Amendment rights.

[ClaireH]

if a felon has paid his dues for his crime and the government allowed them out of prison shouldn't they have all their rights back?

A person convicted of a felony loses many of their rights.
Even if after a few years they get a Pardon and some rights are restored. Legal ownership of a firearm is still denied them for life.
Unless they go through an expensive court process and have their criminal record expunged by a judge. But that's only for non violent crimes. People convicted of violent crimes can never legally own a gun. ...

MA state laws: Handguns: Under an LTC, the holder is allowed to transport a loaded or unloaded handgun on his person or in a motor vehicle if the handgun is under his direct control. If the handgun is not under his direct control or is left unattended, it must be unloaded and in a locked case, locked trunk, or other secure container.

Large-Capacity Rifles and Shotguns: All persons transporting large capacity rifles or shotguns under an LTC must transport them unloaded and in a locked case, locked trunk, or other secure container. Trigger locks do not meet the requirements of securing a large-capacity firearm during transport in a motor vehicle. Large-capacity firearms left unattended in a vehicle must be unloaded and in a locked case, locked trunk, or other secure container.

Non-Large-Capacity Rifles and Shotguns: Non-large capacity rifles and shotguns may be transported under an LTC or FID license and must be unloaded but are not required to be in a locked case while transporting. Muzzleloading or other Black Powder arms must also be unloaded while transporting. Note: Although locking cases are recommended, only large-capacity rifles and shotguns are subject to this transporting requirement.

I’ll hold have to go back and review the exact weapons they were carrying, but considering they were on the side of the road, broken down vehicle, how they were transporting their guns will be a factor.

Gun ownership in Massachusetts

Massachusetts residents 15 years and older who wish to possess, carry, and transport firearms, ammunition, and feeding devices are required to have a firearms license. Firearms licenses are issued by municipal police departments.

www.mass.gov

So, unless those guns were all handguns they needed to be unloaded even if they were on their person is my opinion… what I might think in a trial with these factors. A defense attorney could easily defend the guns were in their control at all time and on their person, but that unloaded/loaded factor depends on the type of gun.

If any of the men has previous felony convictions (as has been mentioned on this thread) and without a sealed record, it won’t go well for them as it was against state law. I haven’t watch that guy’s social network channel to know, but I’m gonna need more popcorn.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I’ll hold have to go back and review the exact weapons they were carrying, but considering they were on the side of the road, broken down vehicle, how they were transporting their guns will be a factor. So, unless those guns were all handguns they needed to be unloaded even if they were on their person is my opinion… what I might think in a trial with these factors. A defense attorney could easily defend the guns were in their control at all time and on their person, but that unloaded/loaded factor depends on the type of gun.

None of which matters because they had no license.

It is illegal to possess a firearm in Massachusetts absent a license to do so.

General Law - Part I, Title XX, Chapter 140, Section 131

malegislature.gov

A non-resident of the commonwealth must obtain a temporary license.

General Law - Part I, Title XX, Chapter 140, Section 131F

malegislature.gov

 

[ClaireH]

I’ll hold have to go back and review the exact weapons they were carrying, but considering they were on the side of the road, broken down vehicle, how they were transporting their guns will be a factor. So, unless those guns were all handguns they needed to be unloaded even if they were on their person is my opinion… what I might think in a trial with these factors. A defense attorney could easily defend the guns were in their control at all time and on their person, but that unloaded/loaded factor depends on the type of gun.

None of which matters because they had no license.

It is illegal to possess a firearm in Massachusetts absent a license to do so.

General Law - Part I, Title XX, Chapter 140, Section 131

malegislature.gov

A non-resident of the commonwealth must obtain a temporary license.

General Law - Part I, Title XX, Chapter 140, Section 131F

malegislature.gov

I just read that you are correct about no gun licenses (at least according to one source) reportedly no drivers licenses either among them- so there’s another charge.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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?

They broke firearm laws. Says so right in the article you linked.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

They broke firearm laws. Says so right in the article you linked.

The OP seems to believe that the states have no right or authority to enact or enforce any firearm regulatory measures no matter how Constitutional or consistent with the Second Amendment those measures might be.

 

[badbob85037]

Why would they flee into the woods?

They are democrats. We got a group of them here in Arizona. They call themself the John Brown Gun Club When not marching around with their gun they are shouting out their slogans. They have a few youtube videos. If you ever need a good laugh go watch them. You will see a miracle wondering how they don't shoot each other.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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?

There is no right to stand around with guns.

There are two rights in the 2A.

The first is the right to keep arms, which is the right to OWN guns.

The second is the right to bear arms, which is the right to BE IN THE MILITIA. Or "render military service" or "militia duty", as the FOUNDING FATHERS put it.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

 

[Mark Richard]

JGalt They probably had an attitude towards the police. I'm sure there will be video in the future.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

Their first big mistake is not familiarizing themselves with the gun laws of the State they were passing through. Most all commie States hate gun owners.

.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

Thats exactly what I was wondering. If they're not bothering anyone or breaking laws, why are they being arrested?

You didn't watch the video in the OP link, did ya. They were armed on a public roadway which is illegal in MA. That was explained in the video.

.

 

[justinacolmena]

state law cannot supersede the U.S. Constitution why are those law enforcement officers not following the U.S. Constitution?

The U.S. Constitution is illegal under a Democrat president and an Ivy League law school Supreme Court.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

state law cannot supersede the U.S. Constitution why are those law enforcement officers not following the U.S. Constitution?

They are following the Constitution – which holds that laws requiring a license to possess a firearm in no manner violate the Second Amendment.

Should at some point the Supreme Court rule that laws requiring a license to possess a firearm are invalid, state law enforcement will stop enforcing the licensing requirement thereby following the Constitution.

 

[pknopp]

I disagree. It's the proper role of a citizen to ignore unconstitutional laws.

You can disagree all you want but this is both ridiculous and wrong.

It’s the proper role of citizens to seek to have laws they consider to be un-Constitutional overturned by either the political process (repealing laws) or through the judicial process by filing suit to seek relief in court.

Is that how this country was founded?

 

[pknopp]

There has been NO Supreme Court rulings that state a state can restrict your 2nd Amendment rights.

It doesn’t need to – states have the authority to enact all manner of measures placing limits and restriction on the Second Amendment right provided those limits and restrictions don’t violate Second Amendment case law.

Certain you’re not arguing states’ rights do not exist.

States rights exist outside of the Constitution. The 2nd is clear.

 

[pknopp]

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?

They broke firearm laws. Says so right in the article you linked.

The 2nd says nothing about permits.

 

[pknopp]

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?

There is no right to stand around with guns.

There are two rights in the 2A.

The first is the right to keep arms, which is the right to OWN guns.

The second is the right to bear arms, which is the right to BE IN THE MILITIA. Or "render military service" or "militia duty", as the FOUNDING FATHERS put it.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

What's the point of owning guns (and why did the Founders see to that) if you can't actually take them out?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Is that how this country was founded?

Colonists angry that the British refused to allow landowners to expand their holdings and who kept trying to incite slaves to revolt.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

States rights exist outside of the Constitution.

…until the states enact laws repugnant to the Constitution – see Article VI and Cooper v. Aaron (1958).

And the licensing requirements are perfectly Constitutional, in no manner in violation of the Second Amendment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The 2nd says nothing about permits.

…which is why the licensing requirements are perfectly Constitutional.

 

[justinacolmena]

You can disagree all you want but this is both ridiculous and wrong.

You're a fucking idiot.

through the judicial process

There's no "judicial" process in the U.S. It's a mandatory collective bargaining plea deal, with additional "shelf indictments" to file if you don't take the deal. Forced confession, if you want to talk human rights.

by filing suit to seek relief in court.

You'd honestly have better luck if you'd just unzip your pants and relieve yourself in front of the judge while "court" is in session.

They are following the Constitution – which holds that laws requiring a license to possess a firearm in no manner violate the Second Amendment.

There's a absolute right, which "shall not be infringed" under any circumstances, in any way, shape, or form.