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.
Does anyone have a link to this insane ruling?
I am not shocked a federal judge is ignoring the Constitution.
This ignorant judge must not be able to read a dictionary!
Midgets were military weapons during the revolution.
>>case law already settled that 2a is not about merely sport hunting.<<
Actually it’s about the constitutionally recognized right of all citizens to keep and bear arms for purposes of resisting when warranted, the forced abrogation of that and other rights by any individual, organization, or government — INCLUDING COURTS AND JUDGES.
Just another day in the Soviet Northeast....
Idiot judge or paid-off judge
>>A federal judge can’t be that stupid, can he ?/s/?<<
I was employed in the judiciary for 25 years, so I can tell you from experience that a large percentage of them are not only ignorant but obscenely arrogant as well.
I do t expect to live to see it, but maybe someday congress will return the court’s jurisdiction closer to its (lesser) original scope. Where it no longer can arrogate dictatorial powers over any and everything
The AR platform has been around since AD 1958! 60 years!
>>I want to be able to carry around my own personal swivel gun...<<
The day may be coming, and sooner than you think, when not having one will prove to be a fatal misfortune.
““Shall NOT be infringed” has a meaning. This judge and his ruling and the governor that supports it needs to be hanged. It is coming to that.”
It long ago passed that point.
“Specifically, to what features are you referring, your “honor”?
He doesn’t have a clue.
“A Reagan appointee......................”
Reagan was no cherub...Mulford Act, Brady, 1986 machine gun cut off, letter in support of Clinton Assault Weapon Ban.
>
case law already settled that 2a is not about merely sport hunting.
>
The point is immaterial and moot.
The plain English of the 2nd, along w/ Federalism denies govt from even broaching the subject.
Miller started it all w/ the Courts ignorance of ‘trench sweepers’ (IOW: could be banned ‘cause they WEREN’T weapons of war). Now, the Courts\Legis. flip 180 to say “Sure we can ban. These ARE weapons of war.”
The last 4 words of the Amendment are only touched upon once, and never more. He cites case upon case upon case (all ‘recent’, I didn’t find any prior to 1900’s), but NEVER the (anti)Federalist Papers, etc.
I noticed that the left started using the term “weapons of war” recently. I guess “assault weapon” wasn’t working for them anymore.
Weapons of war are exactly what the 2nd amendment is about. The people armed with weapons of war to check and balance the gov’t weapons of war. A well regulated militia (read gov’t army) was a necessity to the security of a free state, and needed a check and balance to keep the gov’t from using that necessary evil against us.
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Unconstitutional.
These are NOT “military style” weapons. These semi-automatic rifles were intended for the civilian market.
And “sporting purposes”? The Second Amendment has nothing to do whatsoever with so-called “sporting purposes.”
Wasn’t the MA law in question gleefully signed by the San Francisco sidewalk steamer Mitt Romney? And the current groveler of MA supports it? MA is so Obama’d.
>
This will force the direct question to SCOTUS and bring into play the Heller decision that clearly states that common firearms in this country are in fact covered by 2A.
>
To what purpose?
Even Scalia failed to noodle his own ‘logic’ fallacy when he wrote, “...the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”.
Ergo: How can it NOT be unlimited, if it can not be infringed??
Heller was a RESTRICTION, not a loosening (the whole ‘defense of/while in the home’).
And, the whole “arms of the times” can be broadened to encompass the 1st (printing presses, flyers\criers vs. internet\etc.)
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.