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]

...
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]

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]

It's this way because I say it is......

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]

And they were.....

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]

I agree wholeheartedly.....

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

2A and constitutional issues

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.