Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire MA. judge upholds statewide ban on AR's. Not protected by 2A.

The attempt to chip away continues. There is much work to do.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...usetts-assault-weapons-ban-idUSKCN1HD2CW


[quote](Reuters) - A federal judge on Friday upheld a Massachusetts law banning assault weapons including the AR-15, saying the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment guarantee of Americans’ right to bear firearms does not cover them.

FILE PHOTO - AR-15 rifles are displayed for sale at the Guntoberfest gun show in Oaks, Pennsylvania, U.S., October 6, 2017. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts
U.S. District Judge William Young in Boston ruled that assault weapons and large capacity magazines covered by the 1998 law were most useful in military service and fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment’s personal right to bear arms.

“In the absence of federal legislation, Massachusetts is free to ban these weapons and large capacity magazines,” Young wrote.

He also rejected a challenge to an enforcement notice Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey issued in 2016 to gun manufacturers and dealers clarifying what under the law is a “copy” of an assault weapon like the Colt AR-15.

Healey announced that notice after a gunman killed 49 people at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida.

Healey welcomed Young’s ruling. “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,” she said in a statement.


The decision came amid renewed attention to gun violence and firearms ownership after a gunman killed 17 students and staff at a Florida high school in February, prompting a surge of gun control activism by teenage students.

Young acknowledged that the plaintiffs had cited the semi-automatic AR-15 rifle’s popularity in arguing the law must be unconstitutional because it would ban a class of firearms Americans had overwhelming chosen for legal purposes.

“Yet the AR-15’s present-day popularity is not constitutionally material,” Young wrote. “This is because the words of our Constitution are not mutable. They mean the same today as they did 227 years ago when the Second Amendment was adopted.”

The Gun Owners’ Action League of Massachusetts, which was among the plaintiffs who sued in 2017, said in a statement that it was concerned by the ruling, which sets a “dangerous precedent.” It said it would consider its next steps.

The U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 held for the first time that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual’s right to bear arms, but the ruling applied only to firearms kept in the home for self-defense.

The justices have avoided taking another major gun case for eight years. Most recently, in November, the court refused to hear a case challenging Maryland’s 2013 state ban on assault weapons./quote]

Figured a militia is military, therefore, requires military arms. That said, an AR15, is not a military arm.

The SCOTUS will squash it, just gonna take time.

I will say this The Democrat party is a dead, one their full of chit on this the illegals the whole thing they stand for

FEDERAL JUDGE, appointed by Reagan no less.....

Harry M,

YEP. And EARL WARREN was appointed by GEN Eisenhower, too.
(Some judges don't turn out to be what the POTUS thought that they'd be.)

yours, tex

Basic facts - there are all sorts of lawyers - ranging from highly principled down to dishonest creeps, and ranging from wise upholders of the Constitution down to delusional hacks. And, judges simply are lawyers in robes. If challenged to the limit, that ruling will not sand.

When the libs tell me our founders never envisioned the modern weapons we could buy today, i tell them they also never envisioned the weapons the govt would develop to abuse us either.

I wonder when it became illegal for folks to have canons.

Thats why lowyers become politicians. And, unfortunately, even the best delight in making laws that lead to the ilk of their brethren owning us.

Thing is, we already went down this road once, and it was found that such a ban did nothing to curb shooting deaths and crime, but here we go again.

What part of "....shall not be infringed." does the judge not understand?

As for believing the U.S. Supreme Court would overrule the decision of the lower court, I believe that it is sheer folly to try and second guess what the Supreme Court would rule on a particular issue, especially firearms.

Just my opinion.

L.W.

He must be thinking of the "living and breathing" part.

obamacare

I agree. What a POS!!!!!

"Canons" are laws,,, I bet you meant "cannons"..., right?



There's been a ton of 'judges' who 'do not understand' the 2A..

Of course it's ludicrous but in the meantime the judgement stands. We continue to reap the benefits of past republican presidents bowing to the will of the democrats by appointing people to the bench with regards to keep a balanced court. I have never understood the need to keep the court balanced between defending and abolishing the constitution. It's sort of an oxymoron. Jefferson once opined that some future generation might need to physically defend the constitution.

Not a lack of understanding, but a case of a judge that wants to make law, and not uphold law. miles

I agree. I do not trust Second Amendment rights to anyone wearing a black robe.

gun makers need to make firearms "designed for civilian" use and then let the military adopt them.


not that I think that is necessary but if the only thing that they are basing the rule on is its a military spec weapon, then we can fix that pretty quick