On Friday Feb 11th the Attorney General of Massachusetts posted a video of an interview she did with Chris Matthews on HardBall.
The comments that people made on her post and her responses show that she is unfit to be the Attorney General of Massachusett, that she does not understand the Constitution and that she ignores decisions of the Supreme Court to suit her anti-gun orthodoxy.
Here is her original post.
We have screen shotted some of the comments to keep them from being lost if the AG decides to delete them.
The important part is that she claims that her Assault Weapons Ban enforcement is Constitutional as she quotes just a small part of the Second Amendment, “A well regulated militia“. Clearly she doesn’t understand that “well regulated” meant well practiced in those times. Then she leave out the part about the “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” The right of the people, not the right of the militia.
One can come to no other conclusion than the Attorney General is unfit to serve in this office.
Here is my comment to her, based in fact and not a liberal interpretation of the document. Then a Second Amendment Attorney tells her where to read the decision.Steve Foley Maura Healey You should really read SCOTUS interpretation of the prefatory clause in the Heller decision: ” (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. “