Posted on 04/06/2018 7:13:35 PM PDT by Kaslin
Well, it was not a good day for the stock market and it wasn’t a good day for gun rights. A federal judge decided to uphold a law that already strengthened the state’s ban on so-called assault weapons. The judge went on the whole weapons of war tangent in his opinion (via Bloomberg)
Massachusetts’ beefed-up ban on assault weapons doesn’t violate the Second Amendment of the Constitution, a U.S. judge ruled, handing a victory to gun-control advocates seeking to pass such a law nationwide following a spate of deadly mass shootings.
"The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional rights to ‘bear arms,’" U.S. District Judge William Young wrote in a decision Thursday in Boston, dismissing a lawsuit over the state law.
Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey was sued by a gun-rights group in response to her July 2016 enforcement notice that broadened the definition of "copies or duplicates" of AR-15 and AK-47 models that are prohibited under the state’s 1998 assault-weapon bans.
“These are weapons of war that belong on the battlefield, and we were pleased today to see yet another court agree with that stance,” Kris Brown, co-president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said in a statement.
In Boulder, Colorado, the council is moving forward to ban AR-15s within the city limits. High capacity magazines and bump stocks will also be prohibited (via Fox31 Denver):
The Boulder City Council passed the first read of an ordinance that will ban the sale and possession of assault weapons in the city,.
The ordinance was passed unanimously after a five-hour hearing during which nearly 150 people spoke.
The proposed ordinance would also ban high-capacity magazines and bump stocks.
The city council will possibly vote on the measure two more times before it becomes law.
Councilwoman Jill Adler Grano said, “This is not a knee-jerk reaction.”
Folks, this is why when the Left says we want a new ban on so-called assault weapons (i.e. guns we think that look scary), don’t give in; they’ll take a mile. And while there have been multiple legal challenges on existing assault weapons bans, the Supreme Court refuses to hear arguments. I get it. We have a right to bear arms, every state to a certain degree recognizes carry rights, more states have adopted constitutional carry laws (no permit required), and Second Amendment proponents have scored big on the legal front in the past regarding the Heller and McDonald decisions. Yes, the late Justice Antonin Scalia said that no right is absolute and states are free to pass laws regulating how this right is exercised, but this is not simple gun control; it’s a ban. The magazine limits give the game away. You cannot own an AR-15 rifle, which will be added into the news coverage. What will be missed are the scores of handguns that carry more than ten rounds, which will also be banned.
In Illinois, Deerfield, a suburb of Chicago, banned residents from owning AR-15 rifles and high capacity magazines. They have until June to turn them over to the authorities, destroy them, or transfer them out of the village limits. Owners risk a $1,000/day fine for non-compliance. So, the Second Amendment is dead in this slice of America. They’re instituting a gun ban—and threatening law-abiding gun owners with quasi-eviction if they don’t bend to the will of the state. In Oregon, a church group is also collecting signatures for a ballot initiative that would also force law-abiding gun owners to turn over, register, destroy, or transfer out of the state their firearms. This is why the anti-gun Left cannot be trusted. This is why the Supreme Court needs to weigh in. we’re past simple laws now; the local authorities in these deep-blue pockets of America are coming after the Second Amendment and the people who exercise that right. You can’t live here if you want to own a firearm. That’s grossly unconstitutional.
See post 92
There is nothing in the second amendment that bans guns that were first manufacuted for military use. Traitorjudgeyoung needs to be impeached, removed, tried, convicted, sentenced, and publicly hanged for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
[Thankfully I dont own an assault rifle by the real world definition, all of mine are passive rifles.]
Yes, like that scoped bolt-gun dangerous sniper rifle.
They are coming FOR...
Thanks.
From the decision :
“...In a 4-3 decision, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts’ dismissal of the complaints against the District of Columbia and individual members of the Metropolitan Police Department based on the public duty doctrine ruling that “[t]he duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists”. ...”
Then why don’t the courts affirm in favor of the 2nd Amendment individual right to self defense, given that the public duty doctrine doesn’t allow the cop to defend the individual person?
Right on! Well said.
This is total BS!
kingu wrote:
“Eh, let’s play devil’s advocate and say that it strictly applies to the militia.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
“
From the link:
“...and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. ...”
By that “devil’s advocate” reasoning of the link,
all the US citizen women between 17 and 45 that are not in the National Guard are not in the militia, and thus don’t have any 2nd amendment rights.
The 2nd amendment came before that link, so I believe the wording in that Amendment takes precedence.
It states (modern word in parentheses) the reason for the right:
“a well regulated (trained) militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”
and then the right itself:
“the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”
“The people” then includes women also.
I agree, no upper age limit for the citizen militia.
“17 to 45” is military/4 branches of service age limits, with some exceptions on upper end.
Outstanding video. That man is an AMERICAN after my own heart.
Make it go viral.
The only thing I disagree with is his statement about “you pass the law, I’ll follow it.”
I absolutely refuse to give up my Right, and the means to defend it.
No surprise. Boulder = Kalifornia East
The only thing I disagree with is his statement about “you pass the law, I’ll follow it.”
><
I picked up on that, too. But I think it was hypothetical and was part of his points on how counter productive and stupid it would be because then he went on to say it will never happen....”come hell or high water”.
Right on!
We're veering dangerously close to the point where The People will have to weigh in.
Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.
Daniel Webster
Thanks for that. We must never forget it and I appreciate your excellent point.
This needs to be repeated, often. Our rights come from God, and are Natural Rights that are unalienable. The Bill of Rights was a set of declarations and further RESTRICTIONS against the government violating our already-existing rights. Many people do not know this, but the Bill of Rights has a Preamble that explains this:
“Congress OF THE United States
begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday
the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.”
(People should note that the original Bill of Rights, as proposed, had 12 Articles of Amendment, 10 of which were ratified in 1791. The original 2nd Amendment was the 4th Article in this set of 12).
So, are they going to go door to door confiscating already-owned weapons and ammo magazines? Just like the Demonic-rats denied they would ever do?
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.