https://www.boston.com/news/lo...iolate-2nd-amendment

BOSTON (AP) — Assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are not protected by the Second Amendment, a federal judge said in a ruling Friday upholding Massachusetts’ ban on the weapons.

U.S. District Judge William Young dismissed a lawsuit challenging the 20-year-old ban, saying assault weapons are military firearms that fall beyond the reach of 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.”

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,” Healey, a Democrat, said in a statement. “Families across the country should take heart in this victory.”

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 cannot be considered a “military weapon” because it cannot fire in fully automatic mode.

But Young dismissed that argument, 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 state’s 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 prohibits the sale of specific and name-brand weapons and explicitly bans copies or duplicates of those weapons.

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 the group will appeal the ruling.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution allows Americans to have guns in their homes for self-defense, blocking 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.

quote:

“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.

I guess the judge has never read Heller.

What the hell does he think "in common use" means? I guess 15 million of them aren't "common" enough?

Judicial over reach. This should be appealed

quote:

“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.

Ugh. I read that and it's all I can do not to bash my head repeatedly into a brick wall.

I really wish the Supreme Court would squash this nonsense once and for all.

And can we talk about how the first Supreme Court case regarding the Second Amendment, US v Miller, turned on the (erroneous) argument that the banned weapon was NOT a military weapon, and thus not protected by the 2A? Thus if this idiot judge is arguing that the AR-15 IS for military use, then it should be specifically protected by the 2A!

quote:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

quote:

I really wish the Supreme Court would squash this nonsense once and for all.

They did. The spike simply needs to be driven home. The banners are trying to make that an exercise in whack-a-mole in the hopes that some litigant, some where, simply won't have the money and the stamina to fight the decision up the appeals tree.

That liar is substituting his opnion for the law.

Good logic, BTE!!

He needs to read Heller and Joyce Mconald’s books. As I read it the 2nd amendment doesn’t grant any right, it affirms the right and states that the government will not infringe on that right.

Fuck you, your “honor”...

I would say that "judge" needs to eat these while reading Heller:

Appeal

So why didnt the 2nd Amendment prohibit people from owning “military weapons” in the 18th-20th centuries? Werent smoothbore muskets considered “military” weapons back in the day. Pretty sure the 2nd amendment covers our right to carry a standard issue infantry firearm.

checking on the difference of militia and military

quote:

Originally posted by bendable:
checking on the difference of militia and military

Military: the standing army of the country under the command of the federal government.

Militia: all other citizens "the people", with the affirmed right to bear arms.

Even the Federalist Papers clearly imply that the arms of the standing army and the militia are the same and that the standing army should always be well outnumbered by the armed citizens to prevent oppression and tyranny. A semi-auto firearms and magazines of any capacity are NOT in any way an unreasonable arm and equipment for the citizenry to possess and own. They have been in common use for over a century!

quote:

But Young dismissed that argument, 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.”

I guess I gotta toss my Uberti Cattleman SA pistols out since they are a design based on a gun that was first manufactured for military purposes.

Considering the number of automatic M4 style rifles the US military have vs. how many semi-auto AR-15 rifles are owned by regular citizens, the AR is far more common by a ratio of about 30 to 1 which by some strange coincidence falls right in the range mentioned in Federalist 46 for an ideal ratio of armed citizens vs standing army to keep oppression and overreach at bay.

The appeal should make it clear to all these activist and personal opinion judges that their time is done as far as the 2A is concerned.

quote:

Originally posted by jbcummings:
He needs to read Heller and Joyce Mconald’s books. As I read it the 2nd amendment doesn’t grant any right, it affirms the right and states that the government will not infringe on that right.

This.

this 'judge' needs to be taught a lesson

one that hurts

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

“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.

I guess the judge has never read Heller.

It's worse than that....He read Heller and cited it in support of his opinion even though it said pretty much the opposite of what he cited it for. He distorted Scalia's words beyond recognition.

This will likely have to wait for a circuit split to get consideration at SCOTUS - and even then, they have shown no great desire to wade back into 2A issues. Hopefully, they will recognize the importance of defending their precedents against blatant misinterpretation and grant cert (and hopefully after Kennedy retires and is replaced by another Gorsuch style justice).

This message has been edited. Last edited by: ChicagoSigMan,