The problem is

Via the NRA.

From Massachusetts:

Selectman Barry Greenfield introduced an enforcement discussion Wednesday that he hopes will lead to the safeguarding of guns in town…

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.

Fourth Amendment rights are apparently a mere discussion point because later he says, “There are civil liberty matters to consider”.

The real problem here is that they have a registry of a protected class of people. In this case it is gun owners but it doesn’t matter what the name of the minority or what the government justification for it is. Registries of Christians/Catholics/Muslims/Jews/Japanese/Germans/Italians have all been used for oppression someplace or sometime. A registry of a people exercising constitutionally protected right is a precursor to direct infringement of that right. Requiring the registration of those exercising their rights has a chilling effect on the free exercise of those rights and is unconstitutional.

In allowing himself to be quoted Barry Greenfield has admitted he is conspiring to commit felonies. He should review 18 USC 241 and 18 USC 242, voluntarily surrender to authorities, and sign a written confession. If he does I could see making a case for a good plea deal. Otherwise someday those words could be used at his trial.

BarryGreenfield
Barry Greenfield

Sebastian recommends tar and feathers.

Thirdpower points out the slippery slope is real.

3 thoughts on “The problem is

  1. The right to keep and bear arms is not respected in Massachusetts, which is one reason why I will not work there. (Right now I work about a mile north of there.) It also explains the high crime rate in the state.
    Historical trivia item: as I recall, during the Bill of Rights ratification discussions, there was a lot of sentiment in Massachusetts objecting to the 2nd amendment. No, not because of opposition to gun rights. Not likely back then, given that it was attempted confiscation that triggered the revolutionary war in the first place. The argument back then was that it was unnecessary — the Federal government didn’t have the power to regulate guns in the first place, and saying so a second time was just redundant.
    Ah, the good old days when people still believed Article 1 section 8 meant anything.

  2. The second amendment already safeguards our guns. Get it, along with the principles of liberty, back into full force and effect, and there’s no “problem” left to “solve”.

    But that leaves out a whole big heap of bureaucrats. They’ll never go willingly, and so right THERE is our real problem– how to get rid of a few million bureaucrats, lawyers and politicians, to get them off our backs and retask them into something productive.

    • It would be an improvement if they would just retire with no one hired to take their places.

Comments are closed.