Posted on 04/06/2018 10:16:57 AM PDT by Simon Green
Federal judge upholds Massachusetts assault weapons ban © Getty Images
A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit on Friday challenging Massachusetts's ban on assault weapons.
U.S. District Judge William Young said in his ruling that the firearms and large magazines banned by the state in 1998 are “not within the scope of the personal right to ‘bear Arms’ under the Second Amendment.”
The features of a military-style rifle are "designed and intended to be particularly suitable for combat rather than sporting applications," Young wrote.
Massachusetts was within its rights since the ban passed directly through elected representatives, Young decided.
“Other states are equally free to leave them unregulated and available to their law-abiding citizens,” Young wrote. “These policy matters are simply not of constitutional moment. Americans are not afraid of bumptious, raucous, and robust debate about these matters. We call it democracy.”
The lawsuit was filed last year by the Gun Owners Action League of Massachusetts, who claimed the law infringed on their Second Amendment rights.
Attorney General Maura Healey (D), a defendant in the suit, said the ban “vindicates the right of the people of Massachusetts to protect themselves from these weapons of war.”
“Strong gun laws save lives, and we will not be intimidated by the gun lobby in our efforts to end the sale of assault weapons and protect our communities and schools,” Healey said in a Facebook statement. “Families across the nation should take heart in this victory.”
State laws on firearms have been under increased scrutiny since the Parkland, Fla., school shooting in February, which left 17 dead.
After the shooting, Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) signed new restrictions raising the age limit for gun purchases from 18 to 21 and imposing a three-day waiting period for the sale of most long guns. The National Rifle Association promptly filed a lawsuit against the Florida law.
Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker (R) said in the aftermath of the Feb. 14 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School that he would support a federal ban on assault-style weapons.
hear hear!!! 100%...
>
>>
[[the Court reasoned that because the possession of a sawed-off double barrel shotgun does not have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia,]]
>>
The court is wrong=- the 2n’d A makes no mention of a militia- it simply states that the rights of the people to defend themselves/bear arms shall not be infringed-
>
Come now, Bob, the 2nd DOES indeed mention militia, but it is subordinate to the last 1/2 of the text; merely reaffirms the militia IS The People.
>
Judges have legislated from the bench concerning this issue- and should be removed or their opinions/decisions overturned
>
Concur, but I have no hope any critter in D.C. has the fortitude, let alone will.
Govt has become a round-robin of ‘wink wink nudge nudge’, scratch your back you scratch mine.
Anyone truly believe they would upset THAT apple cart??
[[Come now, Bob, the 2nd DOES indeed mention militia,]]
You’re right, i spaced out on my statement-
[[but it is subordinate to the last 1/2 of the text; merely reaffirms the militia IS The People.]]
it does make mention of ‘well regulated’ however- but the second amendment does not grant people inalienable rights- all people are given the right to defend themselves by God- not by order-
Thanks. I’ll take a look at it today. I ‘d gone to the district website and didn’t see it.
This unfortunate wording is what the gun-grabbers focus on intently. To them; the term "regulated" only means 'government regulation'. When asked though; none of them can point to where the framers laid out the specifics of this so-called regulation and by whom the militia would be regulated.
The term "well regulated" in the parlance of the time meant well functioning, coordinated, etc. There was no such concept of government regulation as we know it today. When you think about it; the idea of a 'government regulated' freedom in the Bill of Rights of all places is completely antithetical to the whole purpose of the BOR and the Constitution so the very idea that the founders would have introduced some form of government regulation over scope of the 2nd Amendment is completely contradictory.
>
it does make mention of ‘well regulated’ however- but the second amendment does not grant people inalienable rights- all people are given the right to defend themselves by God- not by order-
>
I compare it to the Commerce Clause. Both say ‘regulate’, but if the 2nd is ‘shall not be infringed’, those using the same definition in both lose the logical battle (as if there ever WAS one w/ the Left).
Too concur w/ your assessment, but have a hard time noodling how to jive ‘inalienable Rights’ w/ a lawful, Constitutional ‘Amendment process’.
The Founders were great students of History; I cannot fathom that they would *ever* believe govt could be so benevolent/true as to allow the 2nd to be ‘voted out’ of the Bill of Rights.
On the other hand, true that too much has been battled on the INCORRECT front. IMO, much should be done vs. A1S8 (and the CC, as stated above).
The whole PREMISE of our Federalism system is the brevity of govt authority/power
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.