Judge: Assault weapons ban doesn't violate 2nd Amendment

[rtquig 45]

How will this affect those of us in NJ?  I think those that live in Massachusetts are getting hit harder then we are at the present time. I'm hoping there will be a quick appeal to this case. This judge clearly doesn't understand or wish to understand the reason we have a Second Amendment.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/judge-assault-weapons-ban-doesnt-violate-2nd-amendment/ar-AAvyIYD?ocid=spartandhp#image=1

This was published over an hour ago.

 

BOSTON — A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit challenging Massachusetts' ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, saying in a ruling released Friday that the weapons fall beyond the reach of the Second Amendment.

U.S. District Judge William Young said assault weapons are military firearms and aren't protected by the constitutional right to "bear arms." Regulation of the weapons is a matter of policy, not for the courts, he said.

"Other states are equally free to leave them unregulated and available to their law-abiding citizens," Young said. "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."

Democratic state Attorney General Maura Healey said the ruling "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," she said in a statement. "Families across the country should take heart in this victory," she said.

Young's decision comes as AR-15 assault-style rifles are under increased scrutiny because of their use in several recent mass shootings, including the February massacre at a Florida high school that left 17 people dead.

The Gun Owners Gun Owners' Action League of Massachusetts and other groups that filed the lawsuit argued that the AR-15 can't be considered a "military weapon" because it cannot fire in fully automatic mode.

But Young dismissed that idea, noting that the semi-automatic AR-15's design 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 wrote.

Young also upheld Healey's 2016 enforcement notice to gun sellers and manufacturers clarifying what constitutes a "copy" or "duplicate" weapon under the 1998 assault weapon ban, including copies of the Colt AR-15 and the Kalashnikov AK-47.

Healey's stepped-up enforcement followed the shooting rampage at a nightclub in

Orlando, Florida, that killed 49 patrons. She said at the time that gun manufacturers were circumventing Massachusetts' ban by selling copycat versions of the weapons they claimed complied with the law.

The Massachusetts assault weapons ban mirrors the federal ban that expired in 2004. It bans the sale of specific and name-brand weapons and explicitly bans copies or duplicates of those weapons.

The lawsuit was filed last year by the and other groups who said the law infringed on their rights under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Jim Wallace, executive director of the Massachusetts gun owners group, said Young's upholding of Healey's crackdown on copycat assault weapons gives the attorney general "unbridled authority" to interpret laws as she pleases.

"Everyone in the state should be really concerned about that," Wallace said. "What if the next attorney general isn't a friend on one of your issues?"

Wallace said he couldn't yet say whether they will appeal the ruling.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment allows Americans to have guns in their homes for self-defense and blocked local governments from banning handguns.

But the court last year turned away an appeal from Maryland gun owners who challenged the state's ban on assault weapons.

[Lambo2936 297]

Just saw this and came here to post. VERY dangerous and stupid ruling. Many states will be looking at this as an OK to ban.

[Cemeterys Gun Blob 165]

2 hours ago, Lambo2936 said:

Just saw this and came here to post. VERY dangerous and stupid ruling. Many states will be looking at this as an OK to ban.

Some states already do.

Need to get a lawsuit regarding the 'common usage' mention in Heller/McDonald.

[Shawnmoore81 623]

Appointed by Reagan too


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My opinion. They want cw2


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Handyman 5,682]

If you live in MA long enough, sooner or later the liberal taint will mutate you into a moronic progressive.

Anyone who is counting on the judiciary to save us is dreaming. They are just as stupid as every other branch of government.

[SJG 253]

 A U.S. District Court decision in Mass sets no precedent and is not binding on anyone but the parties to the suit. However, knowing that Circuit it is likely they will affirm the decision which will impact that Circuit.  The proposed NJ bill on assault weapons, which is really a "one evil feature bill" would result in a de facto ban and/or a featureless AR. I am sure the assembly will move on that in their next round of firearms bills. Either way, and make no mistake the objective is to do in the AR. Any such law will probably be challenged, but the bottom line is, this issue is not going away and will only be laid to rest if and when the U.S. Supreme Court chimes in. That may or may not happen in our lifetimes.

[rtquig 45]

12 hours ago, SJG said:

 A U.S. District Court decision in Mass sets no precedent and is not binding on anyone but the parties to the suit. However, knowing that Circuit it is likely they will affirm the decision which will impact that Circuit.  The proposed NJ bill on assault weapons, which is really a "one evil feature bill" would result in a de facto ban and/or a featureless AR. I am sure the assembly will move on that in their next round of firearms bills. Either way, and make no mistake the objective is to do in the AR. Any such law will probably be challenged, but the bottom line is, this issue is not going away and will only be laid to rest if and when the U.S. Supreme Court chimes in. That may or may not happen in our lifetimes.

Not that I would do this, what would happen if someone cut off the pistol grip with a saw? I have plans in place to transfer them out of state if it comes down to it, but still wonder if they would be then legal?

Also, I'm sure this has been already talked about but you just can't read every bill the liberals put out there. We have talked about lever action, tubes for 22Lr's, Are all semi-auto 22Lr's also banned by their evil features even though you can't compare a "high Powered 5.56 at 3200 fps to a slow 22Lr that fires around 1,000 to 1,200 fps. A S&W  15/22 would be considered an assault weapon even though it is not a "high powered" firearm?  I read the bills as yes it would, but there are so many posts over the internet that go either way. NJ bill say "look alike", so my take is all are included?

[Bob2222 316]

7 minutes ago, rtquig said:

Not that I would do this, what would happen if someone cut off the pistol grip with a saw? I have plans in place to transfer them out of state if it comes down to it, but still wonder if they would be then legal?

Also, I'm sure this has been already talked about but you just can't read every bill the liberals put out there. We have talked about lever action, tubes for 22Lr's, Are all semi-auto 22Lr's also banned by their evil features even though you can't compare a "high Powered 5.56 at 3200 fps to a slow 22Lr that fires around 1,000 to 1,200 fps. A S&W  15/22 would be considered an assault weapon even though it is not a "high powered" firearm?  I read the bills as yes it would, but there are so many posts over the internet that go either way. NJ bill say "look alike", so my take is all are included?

As I read it the factual errors in the ruling begin with the first sentence. (Any thoughts about starting a WH petition for Sessions to open a Civil Rights investigation? "If you gather 100,000 signatures in 30 days, we'll review your petition". )

Mass AG said she wouldn't enforce this against owners (one reason the judge used in supporting his decision) so it becomes more problematic for the rest of us than current Mass AR and AK owners.

And I don't blame Reagan -- it's Massachusetts and a conservative would have been "Blue Slipped" by the Senate.

This is a PG in California, but (apparently) not in New York, and (apparently) is now if you want to buy an AR in Mass but not if you already have an AR in Mass.

Yes, this is a mess!

[monmouth 19]

If more judges follow this type of logic of "copycatting a military weapon" to base their ruling, then the industry will pivot.  Think of how far the AR platform has come in just the last 5 years.  If forced, this same industry comprised of talented designers, machinists, engineers, etc... will come up with a new and unique platform.  At first it will be a few different designs/platforms and like most everything else, a critical mass will latch on to one and the industry will follow suit.

Mil-spec is not the best but a trusted standard.........for now.  Look at Desert Tech's MDR.  They are on the right path and applaud them.  Yes it's easy for the current industry to just follow the trend and tweak here and there.  However, there will be a major pivot with the civilian owned semi auto rifle and it will be better than today's version.

[Old Glock guy 1,127]

35 minutes ago, monmouth said:

If more judges follow this type of logic of "copycatting a military weapon" to base their ruling, then the industry will pivot.  Think of how far the AR platform has come in just the last 5 years.  If forced, this same industry comprised of talented designers, machinists, engineers, etc... will come up with a new and unique platform.  At first it will be a few different designs/platforms and like most everything else, a critical mass will latch on to one and the industry will follow suit.

Mil-spec is not the best but a trusted standard.........for now.  Look at Desert Tech's MDR.  They are on the right path and applaud them.  Yes it's easy for the current industry to just follow the trend and tweak here and there.  However, there will be a major pivot with the civilian owned semi auto rifle and it will be better than today's version.

I like your optimism!  What you say makes a lot of sense.  Let's hope it's true.

It's disheartening that one judge who doesn't like guns is able to deprive millions of gun owners access to a firearm in common use, which is not different in function and ballistics from any other semiautomatic firearm.  

And BTW, whatever happened to the 1930's SCOTUS ruling that guns needed a military application to be acceptable?

[Bob2222 316]

45 minutes ago, Old Glock guy said:

And BTW, whatever happened to the 1930's SCOTUS ruling that guns needed a military application to be acceptable?

Quote

Caetano v. Massachusetts

Opinion of the Court

In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.[7] Citing District of Columbia v. Heller[8] and McDonald v. City of Chicago,[9] the Court began its opinion by stating that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".[6] The Court then identified three reasons why the Massachusetts court's opinion contradicted prior rulings by the United States Supreme Court.[1] First, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted Heller's conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding”.[10] Second, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns were "dangerous per se at common law and unusual" because they were "a thoroughly modern invention", but the Supreme Court held that this was also inconsistent with Heller.[11] Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts

It seems to me that this judge's ruling is at odds with Caetano, McDonald AND Heller.

[1LtCAP 4,262]

should also remind people that the thing's a .22.

 

i used to keep 3 different rounds out on my desk at the shop. a .223, 30-06, and .308. inevitably, cutomers would ask me about them. i'd tell them.....this one is what an ar-15 shoots, this one is fired by the combat rifle my great uncles carried in ww2, and this one is what many hunters use. they'd look at me in amazement with how little the ar cartridge was.

[voyager9 3,434]

6 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said:

should also remind people that the thing's a .22.

 

i used to keep 3 different rounds out on my desk at the shop. a .223, 30-06, and .308. inevitably, cutomers would ask me about them. i'd tell them.....this one is what an ar-15 shoots, this one is fired by the combat rifle my great uncles carried in ww2, and this one is what many hunters use. they'd look at me in amazement with how little the ar cartridge was.

When I first got into firearms I was amazed the difference between the 55gr 223 from an AR and the 115gr 257 Roberts from my father’s rifle. 

[1LtCAP 4,262]

7 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

When I first got into firearms I was amazed the difference between the 55gr 223 from an AR and the 115gr 257 Roberts from my father’s rifle. 

same for me. when i saw my first ar, i was like.....this is a toy, right? where's the real one?

[mossburger 406]

22 hours ago, 1LtCAP said:

same for me. when i saw my first ar, i was like.....this is a toy, right? where's the real one?

 

Not really a good comparison, at least not an honest one. Cartridges like the .30-06 went into bolt action or 8-rd semi auto rifles meant for long distance shooting. After WW2 rifles like the M14 or FAL were designed but militaries saw a way to reduce recoil, and more importantly increase volume of fire because each soldier can now carry much more ammunition.The 5.56 is designed for full auto usage in urban or more close quarters situations and/or as suppressive fire. With the versatility of accurate semi auto shooting at a more moderate distance. So yeah the individual 5.56 is smaller but when 3-4 of them are coming at you at once, doesn't really matter.

This is why I prefer .30 and up, with the restriction of semi auto and only 15 (10) rounds, may as well make them count.