Judge upholds Massachusetts' ban on AR-15s

[timjake]

Massachusetts' ban on assault weapons doesn't violate 2nd Amendment, judge rules

"A judge in Massachusetts on Friday ruled against a lawsuit that questioned the state’s ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, declaring that the weapons were not protected by the Second Amendment.

Assault weapons are considered to be military firearms, U.S. District Judge William Young said in his ruling, therefore disqualifying them from being included in a citizen’s right to “bear arms.”"

full article:

Massachusetts' ban on assault weapons doesn't violate 2nd Amendment, judge rules | Fox News

How long will that ruling stand?

[fordson]

I’m trying to wrap my head around this one. Judge Young’s ruling makes no sense at all. AW are considered to be “military firearms”, which are not covered under the 2A. Is that right? Someone should contact CMP before they sell any more M1s if they want to stay out of trouble.

[orangehole]

Wasnt the Musket a military firearm in the days when the constitution was written?

[fidelity]

Originally Posted by timjake

...
full article:

Massachusetts' ban on assault weapons doesn't violate 2nd Amendment, judge rules | Fox News

How long will that ruling stand?

Judge's comments from the article ...

That notion was ruled out, however, as the judge pointed out that the design of semi-automatic AR-15's is based on guns "that were first manufactured for military purposes" and that the AR-15 is "common and well-known in the military."

"The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to 'bear arms,'" Young said.

Well if the militia is necessary for the security of the state, and the people are the militia, shouldn't citizens have access to facsimiles of rifles used in the armed forces and even local law enforcement? Given that the judge cites the original meaning of the second amendment, didn't citizens also possess firearms capable of military use when the second amendment was ratified? Or is he a mind reader of dead patriots and knew that they only meant the firearms available at that period of time? Funny that they didn't include this provisionary restriction and went with shall not be infringed instead.

The mental gymnastics judges undergo when they can't make an honest argument. The AR-15 is one the most popular semiautomatic centerfire rifles already in civilian hands in the US. The Winchester Model 94 once was, and it is capable of multiple shots, rapidly, with a round more powerful than 223/5.56. Did states ever move to ban the 94? Of course not. But I'm sure this judge could find reason to support banning them if they did.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[diegobxr]

WOW.

So...
Isn't the Beretta 92 a Military Firearm?
The Colt 1911?
The Mossberg 590?

[turbo38gn]

Originally Posted by diegobxr

WOW.

So...
Isn't the Beretta 92 a Military Firearm?
The Colt 1911?
The Mossberg 590?

Shhhhhhh ..... they'll be banning all these military weapons next .....

[moosedog]

Until gun owners organize a large campaign like the left does and let their voices be heard, your just going to have to watch your rights erode.

[rwsmith]

That's pretty much the argument the judge uses, isn't it? How many more guns are to be banned because they 'look' like military guns?

[rwsmith]

Originally Posted by orangehole

Wasnt the Musket a military firearm in the days when the constitution was written?

And they were much more 'lethal' than the arqubuses they replaced. So colonials had to own those instead of 'modern muskets'?

[rwsmith]

Originally Posted by moosedog

Until gun owners organize a large campaign like the left does and let their voices be heard, your just going to have to watch your rights erode.

We have 'outsourced' protection of our rights to the NRA and other organizations. And they only take care of the legislative end, not public opinion.I believe that the NRA has put making gun ownership more safe and friendly in the eyes of the public aside and that their PR stinks, or is at least very weak. That could and probably should be a primary area of OUR responsibility. We need to march, carry signs and run the bully pulpit as well as our opposition does.

[fordson]

Agree. We are losing the PR battle. The middle ground voters, these swing voters, are presented with one side of the debate. It is our responsibility to present the other side. It’s time for action, because our inaction will cost us dearly.

[Old_Cop]

We have no voice in the media, the concept of balanced reporting is antiquated. Tell a lie long enough, it becomes accepted as the truth. As an aside, just where is an assault rifle defined?

[italiansport]

I am assuming that this "ruling" is being appealed to the next highest court? Hopefully that's the case and that a stay is requested until this court reviews it!
Jim

[paulh]

Recent poll here in NJ results in 75% wanting more gun control

[johngalt]

Since the 2nd guarantees our right to protect ourselves from government tyranny, it seems that it specifically protects our right to have military arms.

It seems that judge can't distinguish between interpreting the constitution as he wishes it was written, as opposed to how it is actually written. Unfortunately, a common failing that should disqualify many from being judges.

[rtquig]

Originally Posted by paulh

Recent poll here in NJ results in 75% wanting more gun control

But the poll only has 728 people questioned. Far too little people surveyed to be considered a good poll.

[WCCPHD]

Originally Posted by rtquig

But the poll only has 728 people questioned. Far too little people surveyed to be considered a good poll.

I would question who commissioned the poll, who conducted it and what their methodology was.

Polls produce data. Data can be tortured to tell you anything you want to hear.

[sigp220.45]

Originally Posted by bushmaster1313

Forever
Who is going to overturn it?

Its only a U.S. District Judge in Mass. The circuit court or the Supreme Court could overturn it.

[bushmaster1313]

Originally Posted by sigp220.45

Its only a U.S. District Judge in Mass. The circuit court or the Supreme Court could overturn it.

First Circuit is unlikely to overturn
Supreme Court is unlikely to hear the case

[bulldog06]

As a Mass resident at the time of the AG's letter I recall other concerning items that do not appear to be part of the court's decision.
The AG's letter superceded and overruled the definition of AW's written in state laws. An AG should not be able to discard state laws and make new ones on her own.
The letter also stated that anyone who sold or purchased one of the newly defined AWs in the last 20 plus years was subject to felony prosecution. Evidently, these sales in accordance with state laws, violated her concept of the 'intent' of the law as enacted by the legislature. Change and retroactive prosecution looks like an abuse of power to me, but I moved out of MA two years ago and haven't heard much about the AG until this ruling.

[M29since14]

With the exception of my over-under shotguns, just about every gun I own (and probably so for most everyone else) has its roots in a design originally made for or used by “the military.” What is this man thinking?

Never mind. I know exactly what he’s thinking. “I’m a little God. I can do this and get away with it.”

[federali]

Two phrases in the 2nd Amendment are subject to misinterpretation: "well-regulated" does not mean regulations as we know them today but meant "well-trained" when it was written. "Free state" meant a state of being rather than a geographic locality with borders.

If you outlaw firearms with military origins, there goes all our bolt actions, the beloved M1911, the .38 revolver, even the Colt SAA. Heck, single shots, pump action shotguns, and .22 target rifles.
Talk about a slippery slope.

[WCCPHD]

Originally Posted by federali

Two phrases in the 2nd Amendment are subject to misinterpretation: "well-regulated" does not mean regulations as we know them today but meant "well-trained" when it was written. "Free state" meant a state of being rather than a geographic locality with borders.

If you outlaw firearms with military origins, there goes all our bolt actions, the beloved M1911, the .38 revolver, even the Colt SAA. Heck, single shots, pump action shotguns, and .22 target rifles.
Talk about a slippery slope.

The slippery slope is their goal and the more slippery the better.

[BC38]

Originally Posted by moosedog

Until gun owners organize a large campaign like the left does and let their voices be heard, your just going to have to watch your rights erode.

Originally Posted by fordson

Agree. We are losing the PR battle. The middle ground voters, these swing voters, are presented with one side of the debate. It is our responsibility to present the other side. It’s time for action, because our inaction will cost us dearly.

Yeah, good luck organizing something like that.
Wanna' see the reaction when you try?
Check out this thread
Rally at YOUR State Capital

Try to rally people and our very own Debbie Downers and Negative Nancys will quickly squelch any and all enthusiasm or momentum you manage to get going.

IMO, we're losing and its going to continue - due largely to inaction and attitudes within our ranks.

[Fishinfool]

Originally Posted by BC38

Yeah, good luck organizing something like that.
Wanna' see the reaction when you try?
Check out this thread
Rally at YOUR State Capital

Try to rally people and our very own Debbie Downers and Negative Nancys will quickly squelch any and all enthusiasm or momentum you manage to get going.

IMO, we're losing and its going to continue - due largely to inaction and attitudes within our ranks.

Unfortunately, this is a correct statement. The average "responsible" gun owner is just that, and likely has a job, family resposibilities, money and time constraints, and is likely to just join the NRA (maybe), and let them do the heavy lifting. Heck, that alone would probably work, considering roughly 1/3 of the population owns a firearm. But, most firearms owners are too apathetic to even do that.

You don't have to organize a march or protest to be effective. In my case, I support (join) the NRA. I write letters to my elected officials and local TV stations and press letting them know my views. I attempt to introduce and teach as many new shooters as I can into the shooting sports. Introduced one adult and two kids (our future) into the shooting sports last year.

It all adds up, and makes a difference, and is not very hard to do.

Larry

[paulh]

Originally Posted by rtquig

But the poll only has 728 people questioned. Far too little people surveyed to be considered a good poll.

But it doesn't matter since that's what's in the papers and on the local TV news.

[touchoneoff]

Yeah, but coming out of that state? This does not surprise me.

[rtquig]

I graduated from the University that did the poll. Not that I follow what the school does, but I have never seen a poll of theirs before.

Most people just don't understand NJ. North Jersey and South Jersey are as different as the Yankees and Confederates. Heck the Mason Dixion line when first drawn was less than 4 miles south of me.

[TTSH]

Originally Posted by italiansport

I am assuming that this "ruling" is being appealed to the next highest court?

Believe it or not, that isn't a certainty. It's being looked at as we speak. The particular case is a bit more convoluted & complicated than one might otherwise suspect from the joyful MSM headlines.

Originally Posted by bushmaster1313

First Circuit is unlikely to overturn
Supreme Court is unlikely to hear the case

That wouldn't surprise anyone. And yet a someday in the future Supreme Court decision is what it's going to take to end this anti-2A insanity.

[VonZipper]

What does this do to S&W manufacturing?

[hoosierone]

These judges take an oath to uphold the Constitution. We need capable elected leaders who will move to impeach those who betray their oath of office.

[TTSH]

Originally Posted by VonZipper

What does this do to S&W manufacturing?

Nothing immediately. The powers that control the state (our rabidly anti-2A AG lady in particular) may be anti-gunowner, but they are smart enough not to put a large manufacturing employer and cash cow out of business.

However, in the long run, we can all hope that it means the mothership will move some or all of its manufacturing out of MA and to a still free state.

[Wise_A]

Remember when I was laughing at guys making GRR-MUH-RIGHTS arguments?

Yeah, that. They're a dead-end.

Talk about the ineffectiveness of the law. Talk about the ambiguous definition of an "assault weapon", about the number of non-AR-15s that get lumped in, and the lack of a difference between a totally-legal Ruger Mini-14 and an AR-15. Talk about the criminalization of law-abiding citizens. Talk about the de facto confiscation of private property by the government when law-abiding citizens are told that they cannot sell that property, or even pass it on to their children.

That makes sense to people who aren't gun people.

But hey, it's Massachusetts. Like many states, a completely lost cause once we gave up on the idea of balancing rural and urban communities at the state level.

Fun fact: we also gave away any hope of balancing government against the whims of public opinion when we ratified the 17th amendment.

[LostintheOzone]

I'm afraid that ruling will stand. That's been the situation in all of the lower federal courts if my memory serves me.

What it amounts to is a unanimous declaration by the federal courts that the states have a right to pass legislation that they deem appropriate as a matter of public safety. The supreme court obviously agrees because they won't even hear a case regarding "assault weapons".

I don't expect that situation to change anytime soon. We are probably going to get a state AWB next year. We got a UBC a few years ago.

West coast progressive encroachment. It seems to infect large metro areas like a plague.