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.
So when you loading up your gun and ammo and going up to Massachusetts to take this judge out??? Real patriots don’t wait! You could be the next Paul Revere! We’re waiting...
Yea... Some people talk bigger than others but still all hat and no cattle.
And actually the patriots in colonial times did wait. They did try to work things out with the Crown. The did seek legal avenues. They did try to solve things peacefully. It took them a long time to get tired enough to fight back.
The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with “sporting rifles”.
Would being convicted of a felony (e.g. murder, spying, etc) qualify?
Or getting a dishonorable discharge?
xkaydet65 wrote:
“At every judicial hearing the attorney for the firearms owner must state for the record through his witnesses that the weapons provided for in the 2nd Amendment were, and were known to be by all, weapons of war.”
Where is this from?
The judges ruling?
>
United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
Note that civilian ownership of ‘militia style guns’ are actually protected under the 2n’d Amendment.
>
IIRC, he bastardizes the Miller case. The judgment was against the short-barreled shotgun as the judges had ‘surmised’ (pulled out of their asses, or willfully ignorant) such a weapon was not used *militarily* and, thus, COULD be banned/regulated. Never mind that the ‘trench sweeper’ was quite useful during war.
IOW: Because it was NOT a weapon of war, the 2nd did not apply.
>
Ergo: How can it NOT be unlimited, if it can not be infringed??
Would being convicted of a felony (e.g. murder, spying, etc) qualify?
Or getting a dishonorable discharge?
>
I’m of the 2 ‘states’ mind: One is either a Free Man, w/ all Rights and privileges thereof, or one is a criminal, belonging in prison, or dead.
IOW, ex-Felons are (again) Free Men. Either they have paid their due, or they should still be behind bars.
We should not have a caste system in the U.S. Though, too, prisons should be about repentance\Justice and ‘once through’ *should* be more than enough to dissuade a return.
I’d speculate the dishonorable would fall into the same category.
Back a few years, Mass. was the first state “marrying” homos. Leftists used that new Mass. right to leverage other states to respect it even when their states specifically rejected it. I don’t know why somebody hasn’t responded similarly in Mass. regarding weapons permitted in more permissive states.
>
Back a few years, Mass. was the first state “marrying” homos. Leftists used that new Mass. right to leverage other states to respect it even when their states specifically rejected it. I don’t know why somebody hasn’t responded similarly in Mass. regarding weapons permitted in more permissive states.
>
Because, THEN, the ‘compelling State interest’ (or whatever bullshit cover they’ll use) will trump any/all other ‘logic’ they used to PUSH their Leftist agenda.
They’ll, once again, be a (temporary) convert to State’s ‘Rights’ (another term I abhor. We the People have Rights [inalienable by Creator], States have authority/power [from We the People]).
Yes it has come directly before them and they declined to hear the case and let the lower court decision stand.
According to Deerfield Village Manager Kent Street, the city ordinance banning "assault rifles" was inspired by a similar ban in another Illinois town — Highland Park. In 2013, Highland enacted a ban that was challenged by one of the city’s residents and the Illinois State Rifle Association.
“The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that legislation constitutional and the U.S. Supreme Court let the decision stand when it declined to take up the appeal,” the Chicago Tribune reported.
If you are relying on the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold your Natural Rights..... You will most assuredly lose those rights.
I wrote it. Except for things like fowling pieces most every weapon owned in the US was equal or superior to military firearms.later on citizens often carried weapons superior to the military...Winchesters, Remington Model 8s, Winchester Model 1907s. The history of gun ownership in America clearly demonstrates eeapons of war were intended to be owned hy the citizenry.
“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 judge needs to be impeached by the US Congress and charged with treason for denying Americans their constitutional civil rights. Black-robe fascists are out of control.
Or freedom of speech. Let’s have a 3 day waiting period on the press or better yet on the judiciary opinions.
Funny - my copy doesn’t have all those conditions added to the word “arms”.
A quote to ponder:
“A free people should not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might abuse them, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT.” That from George Washington!
MOST OF THE HUMANS KILLED OVER HISTORY WERE MURDERED BY GOVERNMENTS.
It’s called DEMOCIDE and 260 MILLION people died at the hands of a government in just the 20th century.
>> AG 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.”
Well, that’s one dumb jackass.
but here again- the constitution makes no mention of the fact that only military guns can be allowed by civilian use- the second amendment simply states that we have th right to bear arms- where in the world did the judge in the miller case get the idea that only military guns are allowed? IF that was his opinion, then he should be fine with people owning fully automatic weapons, tanks, bazookas etc- (Which i believe people should be able to own since the government owns them, and the3 intent of the 2n’d A is for the people to be as armed as th military is-
[[Ergo: How can it NOT be unlimited, if it can not be infringed??]]
Exactly- Scalia was simply wrong in his assertion- Again, the whole purpose of the 2n’d A was to make sure the civilians had equal or superior arms to the military in order for we the people to be able to properly protect ourselves IN CASE the need arose to do so against a rogue government- the founding fathers made that point more than clear. How in the world did scalia determine it’s not unlimited? Did he give a reason for his declaration?
[[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- Judges have legislated from the bench concerning this issue- and should be removed or their opinions/decisions overturned
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.