Massachusetts' Gun Control Law and Governor Healey's Overreach

The Fight for Constitutionally Protected Rights Governor Maura Healey’s recent signing of an emergency preamble to a sweeping new gun control law in Massachusetts bypassed established legal procedures and blocked the people’s efforts to delay its enactment. Originally set to take effect on October 23, 2024, this law was expedited to prevent the people from gathering enough signatures to suspend it until a potential 2026 referendum. This action directly violates fundamental principles of the Constitution and the people's constitutionally protected rights, further emphasizing the growing tyranny of government officials who disregard the Constitution they swore to uphold. Governor Healey’s Abuse of Emergency Powers On October 27, 2023, the people of Massachusetts took action to remind Governor Maura Healey of her constitutional obligations. They filed a lawful notice instructing her to halt the ongoing invasion of foreign migrants into the Commonwealth. As the commander-in-chief of the state's military forces, Healey is constitutionally required to defend the state from invasion by "all fitting ways, enterprises, and means whatsoever." The Massachusetts Constitution explicitly grants the governor the power to “kill, slay, and destroy” any such invaders attempting to cause harm to the Commonwealth (Massachusetts Constitution, Part the Second, Chapter 2, Section 1, Article VII). This notice demanded that Governor Healey use the full power of her office to repel the ongoing influx of foreign migrants, asserting her constitutional duty to protect the people of Massachusetts. Furthermore, on August 29, 2024, another notice was sent, demanding that Governor Healey declare the constitutional basis for her use of emergency powers. The people demanded transparency, instructing her to clarify where, if at all, the Massachusetts Constitution grants her the authority to invoke emergency powers beyond those for natural disasters. The notice highlighted that her recent actions, including infringing upon the people’s constitutionally protected Second Amendment rights, lacked any legitimate constitutional justification. If Healey believed she had such powers, the people required her to show where they were derived from within the Constitution. Constitutional Citations and Provisions Supporting the People’s Position 1. Massachusetts Constitution, Part the Second, Chapter 2, Section 1, Article VII: o This provision outlines the commander-in-chief role of the governor, granting the governor full authority over the militia and military forces of the state for the defense and safety of the Commonwealth. It empowers the governor to use force, if necessary, to defend against invaders, including the power to “kill, slay, and destroy” those who attempt to invade or harm the Commonwealth. The people cited this provision to instruct Governor Healey to fulfill her constitutional obligation to stop the influx of foreign migrants. This provision asserts that the governor must defend the Commonwealth “by all fitting ways, enterprises, and means whatsoever.” 2. Massachusetts Constitution, Part the First, Article XVII: This article declares the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the common defense. The gun control measures implemented by Governor Healey directly infringe on this right. The people asserted that their constitutionally protected right to bear arms cannot be overridden by emergency powers or state legislation, emphasizing that these rights are inviolable and must be preserved. 3. U.S. Constitution, Second Amendment: The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms, stating explicitly that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” The actions taken by Governor Healey, including the fast-tracking of gun control legislation, violate this fundamental protection. Any law or emergency power that contradicts this constitutional provision is void from its inception. 4. U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 3: This section, a self-executing clause, provides that any person who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution, or has given aid or comfort to the enemies of the United States, is disqualified from holding office. Governor Healey’s repeated defiance of the Constitution, including her actions that undermine the people’s rights, constitute a rebellion against the governing principles that she swore to uphold. This rebellion triggers her automatic removal under the Constitution. 5. U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 4: This section further emphasizes the accountability of public officials and the responsibility to uphold constitutional provisions. If public servants fail to adhere to these standards, their actions are considered null and void, and they are to be removed from office. Historical Context of the Second Amendment The right to keep and bear arms is deeply rooted in both American history and legal tradition. At the heart of the Second Amendment lies the understanding that a well-armed citizenry is the ultimate safeguard against tyranny. As George Mason stated during the Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1788, "I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." This phrase highlights the idea that every able citizen has a duty to defend the Republic from threats, both foreign and domestic. The Second Amendment enshrines this principle, ensuring that the people have the tools necessary to resist oppression and protect their freedoms. Tench Coxe, writing in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette in 1789, reinforced this sentiment, stating that the people’s right to bear arms was confirmed so that they could protect themselves from civil rulers who might try to "tyrannize" them. The Second Amendment was not merely a right for hunting or sport, but a constitutional defense against government overreach. The historical context underscores that any attempt to infringe on this right is a direct affront to the core principle of self-defense against tyranny. The People’s Question: "By What Authority?" The central question we must continually ask of our public servants is, "By what authority?" This question is the cornerstone of accountability, ensuring that government power remains rooted in constitutional principles, not arbitrary overreach. The people of Massachusetts have the right and duty to resist tyranny in all its forms, calling it out wherever it manifests. Whether through unconstitutional laws, abuse of emergency powers, or neglecting the commonwealth's defense, tyranny must be named and opposed. Under self-executing Sections 3 and 4 of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment, any rebellion against the Constitution or violation of the people’s constitutionally protected rights triggers the automatic removal of those responsible. Governor Healey’s actions, in defiance of the Constitution and the American people within the Commonwealth, constitute such a rebellion. If she believes otherwise, she has had due process to rebut these claims, and her failure to do so is a tacit admission of guilt. By her actions and inaction, she has tacitly agreed to these accusations, and thus, she is Fired! Blocking Accountability and Undermining the People’s Sovereignty The government, under the guise of protecting public safety, has progressively eroded the mechanisms by which the people can hold their representatives accountable. This overreach is not confined to the actions of Governor Healey but is emblematic of a larger trend across many levels of government, where constitutional limitations are disregarded to serve the interests of those in power. This is a direct violation of the principle that government derives its power from the consent of the governed. 1. Citizen Grand Juries Neutered: The government has made efforts to block the ability of citizen grand juries—an ancient and fundamental right that empowers the people to investigate and indict corrupt officials. By weakening this right, the government has shielded itself from direct accountability. 2. Petit Jury Manipulation: The intent and power of petit juries have also been neutered, with citizens often denied their right to serve as impartial jurors capable of nullifying unjust laws. Juries that once stood as a final check against government overreach have been weakened, effectively silencing the people’s voice in court. 3. Right of Suffrage Eroded: The people have been robbed of their right of suffrage, the power to vote for representatives who will genuinely uphold the Constitution and defend their liberties. Gerrymandering, voter suppression tactics, and other electoral manipulations have effectively neutered the people's ability to select representatives who will protect their rights. And now, Governor Healey’s use of "emergency powers" is yet another attempt to strip the people of their rights, including their constitutionally protected right to bear arms, a fundamental liberty guaranteed for the defense of the people against government tyranny. The Tyranny Behind the "Emergency" Governor Healey’s actions raise an important question: Who is she really protecting? Is her emergency declaration truly for the safety of the people, or is it to shield a growing, unchecked power structure within the government itself? By fast-tracking this unconstitutional legislation, Healey appears more concerned with protecting the political class and their agenda rather than securing the rights of the people. The flood of military-age migrants from foreign jails, who have been dispersed throughout the nation, adds a troubling dimension. Is the government positioning itself to protect these individuals, while simultaneously stripping the people of their right to self-defense? Or are public servants, now turned tyrants, fearful that the people might use their constitutionally-protected arms to resist government overreach, as the Second Amendment was originally intended? It is clear that this so-called "emergency" is not about public safety but about preventing the people from defending themselves against the planned tyranny of treasonous public servants. Conclusion The sole and only legitimate purpose of government is to secure the constitutionally protected rights of the people. Every other function is an act of usurpation and treason against the sovereignty of the people. Governor Maura Healey ignored the rights of the people in violation of her oath and usurped her authority to fast-track legislation under the false pretense of protection. Her refusal to explain the constitutional basis for her emergency powers, while actively blocking the people's ability to defend themselves, reveals her true intent: the consolidation of power and the dismantling of the people’s constitutional safeguards. The people must remain vigilant in defending their constitutionally protected rights against government overreach. Healey’s actions, along with those of other tyrants in office, demonstrate that the government’s agenda is to disarm, disenfranchise, and ultimately dominate the people. The people must continue to exercise their constitutionally protected rights, hold their public servants accountable, and protect their liberties from further encroachments. Governor Healey has been put on notice, and the people's call to resist tyranny, demand accountability, and ask, "By what authority?" must continue in order to safeguard freedom. Her rebellion against the Constitution triggers her automatic removal under the law. If she feels differently, the due process to challenge this has been followed, and by failing to respond, she has tacitly agreed to these accusations. Governor Healey is hereby Fired!