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.
I call these places NWO America.
I guess we are headed to a showdown eventually. Leftist Government and other swamp scum will never succeed at what it dreams of doing even if they succeed at turning swaths of America into Syria and Iraq. What is really sick is that the left cannot wait for the next “Parkland”.
That's what a Hate America judge thinks.
AR-15s are not used by the military but let's be very clear about one thing ... the 2nd Amendment was specifically created to protect civilian ownership of military grade weapons. "Weapons of war."
Amendment IIA 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.
Here are quotes from two Democrats, before the Dem Party became the Hate America Party, that speak specifically to the premise of civilians using arms for war...
"By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia,' the 'security' of the nation, and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important."President John F. Kennedy
---------------------------------------------------
"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."
Vice President and Senator Hubert H. Humphrey
The primary reason for the 2nd Amendment was to protect the citizen's right to own and use weapons of war to fight, as civilians, any threat to our sovereignty foreign or domestic.
Let’s not forget every weapon used in assaults; hammers, bats, knives, cars, trucks, pressure cookers, pencils, pens, rocks, sharp sticks (Aliens reference) and harsh words.
Thankfully I dont own an assault rifle by the real world definition, all of mine are passive rifes.
FReepers.. does anyone know if the guy holding the rifle in this photo has ever been identified? What is his name and where is he today? Is he proud of his actions? Would he be brave enough to bust a door down to take a free mans AR or AK?
What is starkly crystal clear is that facts, reason, logic and a decent respect for the truth no longer have meaning or respect with these high handed virtue signaling monsters.
The stage has been set for something exceedingly ugly.
Personal defense is a PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!
If you ask the top cop in YOUR town if you should have a firearm,
MOST police chiefs — many of them control freaks and POLITICAL APPOINTEES — don’t WANT us to be in a position to defend ourselves. Sort of a perverse form of job security. Especially if their boss is a leftist idiot.
But ask MOST beat cops if you should own a firearm and - under their breath - they’ll say “yes.”
There are about 340 million of us. Based on 8 hour shifts, at any given hour, there are approximately 255,000 cops on duty. That’s one cop for every 1,400 of us. If you’re lucky, YOUR cop will show up in time to draw your outline on the pavement and load the body for the trip to the morgue.
Write this down somewhere and read it every day:
WHEN IT COMES TO YOUR IMMEDIATE PERSONAL SAFETY, YOU ARE ESSENTIALLY ON YOUR OWN!!
Don’t think so?
The courts do and here’s the proof:
(If you’re not big on reading legal opinions, skip to “DECISION” for the meat of the decision which is IDENTICAL to virtually every other case on the matter throughout the U.S.)
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App. 1981)
Here’s the link to the full decision:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
I’ll save you some time. Here’s what the courts declared:
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”. The Court thus adopted the trial court’s determination that no special relationship existed between the police and appellants, and therefore no specific legal duty existed between the police and the appellants.
-Vice President and Senator Hubert H. Humphrey
Yep - the Colorado BS prompted Magpul to relocate.
Colorado banned the sale of high capacity magazines, not the possession of them. Two days before the ban went into effect my shooting range had a giant bin of 30 round magazines in the middle of the store by one get 2 free... There has never been an mention of confiscating existing high capacity magazines or making possession of them illegal.
It’s getting closer to put up or shut up time.
The local police force will enforce these laws of course.
Front-line officers may grumble, but anyone who refuses an order will be fired and there will be no shortage of replacements.
Enforcement will be sporadic and capricious. They won't go house-to-house, but a traffic stop involving a CCW permit holder will likely escalate into an arrest for "transport of loaded firearms within the City limits". And that concealed weapon will almost certainly be prohibited because it has the capability to use a "large-capacity magazine".
A feuding neighbor who files a "domestic violence" or "child abuse" complaint may cause the discovery of prohibited firearms during a causal interview of the "Person-of-Interest".
Inevitably, a City staffer or elected official will be caught in violation of the ordinance, and subsequently excused from penalties on some very obscure technicality.
The Boulder ordinance is in gross violation of Colorado Preemption Laws (on matters of "Statewide concern"), not to mention the tattered Second Amendment of the US Constitution.
None of that really matters. The City Government is going to back this abomination to the bitter end. Boulder is a one-party State-within-a-State and the City Council members are quite secure in their jobs.
It will take legal action from outside the City to invalidate this ordinance, and large punitive damage awards to the inevitable victims of enforcement actions.
It will also take direct sanctions against the City in the form of cancelled Federal grant money and prosecution of City officials who violate Immigration laws in the name of "Sanctuary City" policies.
They’re obviously trying to provoke a shootout.
They have obviously concluded they can "manage" it.
Surely the freedom of the press was never envisioned to have tens of millions of readers or that a single blog post could spread around the world in mere seconds.
If you shackle one natural right shouldn't they all be shackled? And precisely where have the people enabled the federal government to ever have the ability to infringe on the natural right of self defense?
The tools and accouterments of a free people are not yours to grant nor curtail, and especially not when it has been expressly forbidden to infringe - something verified by the senate, the president and the states.
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.
