Massachusetts Pandemic Bill s.2028

Original Bill: http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/186/st02pdf/st02028.pdf

Now, this is possibly the most controversial bill to have come through the state legislature since the gay marriage movement. Chief among the issues is the following:

"During either type of declared emergency, a local public health authority as defined in section 1
of chapter 111 may exercise authority relative to subparagraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), (6), (7), (13),(14), and (15); and with the approval of the Commissioner may exercise authority relative to subparagraphs (5), (8), (9), (10), and (11): (1) to require the owner or occupier of premises to
permit entry into and investigation of the premises..."

By law (specifically, the fourth Amendment to the Constitution), law enforcement may not enter your private domain without your consent, or unless they have a warrant, signed by a judge. This is to guard against unlawful search and seizure, and is based off of the American colonists' protesting the Writs of Assistance. At the time, the Writs of Assistance were a way for customs officials to enter any property they wanted and "search" for smuggled items. Smuggling at the time was prevalent in colonial Boston, among other places.

Kind of ironic that the state that had the most vocal opposition to unlawful search and seizure in colonial America would be pioneering a way to violate your fourth Amendment rights, eh?

"(6) to control ingress to and egress from any stricken or threatened public area, and the movement of persons and materials within the area..."

Essentially, blockading an area. Now, I can understand for quarantine reasons doing such a thing. You want to contain the infection or cause for the pandemic. However, anyone who remembers Hurricane Katrina and how FEMA responded knows that the Superdome essentially became a giant concentration camp, and I hate to use that phrase but that's exactly what it became. People were turned back at checkpoints established along the freeways, preventing them from entering New Orleans. People were promised food, water, medicine, and shelter if they went to the Superdome.

There have been legitimate claims by people outside of FEMA that the organization purposely prevented the transfer of bottled water to the Superdome, as well as fuel from the Coast Guard. Keep in mind, this was during a non-medically-declared State of Emergency.

Assuming that the first quoted section does not convey to you the possible Constitutional issues here, let me explain. In a State of Emergency, you are theoretically required to act quickly. As such, the Commissioner (they are talking about public health, not the police) may order law enforcement personnel into any home at any time. You are not talking about this being handled on a case-by-case basis, but rather the commissioner will authorize a blanket search of any premesis the officer feels like entering. And if Hurricane Katrina's aftarmath and response is any indication, law enforcement will be ordered to confiscate any and all firearms in the area, thus violating your second Amendment rights.

This is a huge miscarriage of justice, should it pass. It also sets a very dangerous precedent. Massachusetts is a liberal state, and has been for decades. If this bill passes the state legislature, it will undoubtedly be signed off by the governor. This sets a legal precedent for any other state (or the federal government, for that matter) to draft their own piece of legislature similar to this. Is that what we want?

I will be contacting my own state representative to see where they stand on this (notice the non-gender-denominating word used...truth be told, I don't know who my rep is. I've been out of the State for far too long), and urge that they fight against this bill. I implore any and all citizens of the Commonwealth to do the same.

Semper fidelis, Always faithful.