The Soviet Union disbanded nearly 20 years ago but, make no mistake, some soviet-socialist republics live on.

Example: Massachusetts and California. Apparently, at least one magistrate judge in the Soviet Republic of Massachusetts does not agree with the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, nor the Supreme Court’s rulings in the Heller and McDonald cases.

On Oct. 14th, Judge Marrianne B. Bowler ruled that the Second Amendment does not preclude laws or actions that restrict a “… plaintiff’s right to possess firearms in his home.”

Liberal fascists have long argued that the Second Amendment only confers a right to keep firearms in one’s home. According to Bowler, even that restricted view is too expansive.

On May 11, 1997, Townsend Police and Massachusetts State Police seized weapons owned by Harry Yohe. Yohe sued and was awarded $7,500. Since then, for nearly 14 years, he has been trying to get his firearms returned, which the police have refused to do. The police will not even provide a list of his property that was seized. Apparently, Bowler maintains the weapons were contraband, not private property, and therefore, the police are not required to return the items they basically stole from this man’s home.

Meanwhile, there is an equally disturbing gross violation of fundamental civil rights happening in the Soviet Republic of California.

On Oct. 23, 2009, Edward Peruta sued the Sheriff and County of San Diego for their refusal to issue him a license to carry a concealed firearm. Openly carrying a firearm in public has been illegal in California since 1967. However, there is a 1923 state law that provides a mechanism to carry a loaded handgun for the purpose of self-defense.

Peruta is citing that law in seeking a concealed carry permit, which he claims was arbitrarily denied because he could not show “good cause” to carry a weapon.

On Nov. 12, 2009, the sheriff motioned to dismiss Peruta’s lawsuit. On Jan. 14, 2010, Federal Judge Irma E. Gonzalez issued an 18-page order denying that motion.

“The Supreme Court has explained that the natural meaning of ‘bear arms is to ‘wear, bear, or carry… upon the person or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person,'” she wrote.

But the big question is this: Since when do citizens need to show “good cause” to exercise a right granted to them by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

For more, go to:
Massachusetts and California Federal Judges on the 2nd Amendment
Not Recognizing the 2nd Amendment Still Goes On In Massachusetts
More evidence of police favoritism in Peruta v San Diego gun case
Peruta v. County of San Diego