Federal judge upholds Massachusetts assault weapons ban

The Hill ^ | 04/06/18 | Morgan Gstalter

[Chode]

hear hear!!! 100%...

[Svartalfiar]

Would being convicted of a felony (e.g. murder, spying, etc) qualify?

Or getting a dishonorable discharge?

No, and no. If you can't be trusted with a firearm, then why should you be trusted to be in the general population? The ONLY exception would be parole/supervised release - you're still serving your prison sentence, you're just trading some rights to not serve that sentence in a jail cell.

[Cboldt]

Worman et al v. Baker et al (1:17-cv-10107), Massachusetts District Court

[i_robot73]

>
>>
[[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??

[Bob434]

[[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-

[zeugma]

Thanks. I’ll take a look at it today. I ‘d gone to the district website and didn’t see it.

[American Infidel]

it does make mention of ‘well regulated’

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.

[i_robot73]

>
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