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.

Or Miller. That decision clearly indicated that the only weapons protected by the 2A were those suitable for militia use.

flashguy

I don't see how any judge can rule AR's are not covered by the Second Amendment and feel that speeches on radio and television are covered by the First Amendment. When The Constitution was written, a person had to jump up on a stump to speak and was heard only by the few people around it. Now some agitator gets on tv and half of the city burns down and it spreads to riots across the country. Talk about selective interpretation!

So a Boston-judge rules in favor of the ruling handed down by the Mass State Attorney General.

Wow - shocker there.

isnt a boston judge ruling on a federal case in his state.... a conflict of interest?

MA has still been kept under the Assault Weapon Ban since it was imposed federally. We did not get free during the sunset of the ban. The Feds gave a definition of what an AR was and all MA AGs agreed to follow that definition until now.

For the last 20+ years we could buy the neutered AR-15s that fell under the federal definition of what was and was not an assault weapon. We had no collapsible stocks, flash hiders, bayonet lugs. No high cap mags for rifles or pistols. But the AG in her individual wisdom and power decided that the so called copycat rifles were to be banned too. Though she has not prosecuted anyone that owns a pre 7/20/16 AR, the threat of felony charges still loom for the owners of such rifles.

The court decision has allowed the AG's interpretation of the Assault Weapon Ban to stand. Watch out that your AG or Governor doesn't decide to do the same to you.

I fear that if we lose the Senate during the 2018 midterm election that we will never get another pro-2A justice appointed. I beg you all to get out and vote.

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'll confess to not having access to the actual ruling, but if this quote is accurate it seems to contradict the Supreme Court ruling in US v Miller (1939). In that opinion the court determined that Short Barrelled Shotguns could be taxed/regulated because they were not in common use by the US military at the time (which contrary to many misconceptions of gun enthusiasts is true). Based on Miller it seems this ruling goes against established precedent from the Court.

This guy must not be a big fan of the CMP and the M1 Garand, 1903, 1903a3, 1917, rifles "first manufactured for military purposes" and once "common and well-known in the military."

quote:

Originally posted by fatmanspencer:
isnt a boston judge ruling on a federal case in his state.... a conflict of interest?

This is a Federal judge not a state court judge. Conflict of interest does not play into any of this, regardless of how wrong his decision is.

Judge William Young is:

A. Fascist
B. Imbecile
C. Corrupt
D. All of the Above



.

quote:

Originally posted by Palm:

This is a Federal judge not a state court judge. Conflict of interest does not play into any of this, regardless of how wrong his decision is.

Maybe not on paper, but he lives in Massachusetts and probably hangs out in the same circles as the AG.



.

quote:

Originally posted by TigerDore:

quote:

Originally posted by Palm:

This is a Federal judge not a state court judge. Conflict of interest does not play into any of this, regardless of how wrong his decision is.

Maybe not on paper, but he lives in Massachusetts and probably hangs out in the same circles as the AG.

You may be right. Incidentally, he was appointed by Reagan and also served in the Army for a couple years. You just never know.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_G._Young

Ironically - you can still buy an SBR in Mass.

Yes, true.

But perplexing.

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.

Maybe this brilliant jurist can point me to the phrase in the 2A that specifically describes the 'type' of weapons we have a constitutional right to "keep and bear". Anybody? SCOTUS defined/expanded on this in Heller, and the judge apparently sees fit to ignore that precedent too. Maybe the judge can also grace us with his enlightened interpretation of the phrase "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". There's a real mind bender.

This is bullshit on steroids by a liberal ideologue who doesn't give a damn about what the constitution says or means. This is also a huge part of the reason I have little respect for the legal system anymore.

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

I wonder how he would feel if he was told he could only practice a religion that I picked and only after he pays a hefty tax for the privilege.

quote:

Originally posted by Palm:

quote:

Originally posted by TigerDore:

quote:

Originally posted by Palm:

This is a Federal judge not a state court judge. Conflict of interest does not play into any of this, regardless of how wrong his decision is.

Maybe not on paper, but he lives in Massachusetts and probably hangs out in the same circles as the AG.

You may be right. Incidentally, he was appointed by Reagan and also served in the Army for a couple years. You just never know.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_G._Young

He could have been a conservative 30 years ago, but he is 78 now. Early onset Alzheimer's/Dementia is a real possibility at this point.



.

Another "judge" that fancies himself a legislator in a robe. And being it's Mass, he probably fancies his right to use the ladies room also.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
Maybe this brilliant jurist can point me to the phrase in the 2A that specifically describes the 'type' of weapons we have a constitutional right to "keep and bear". Anybody? SCOTUS defined/expanded on this in Heller, and the judge apparently sees fit to ignore that precedent too. Maybe the judge can also grace us with his enlightened interpretation of the phrase "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". There's a real mind bender.

This is bullshit on steroids by a liberal ideologue who doesn't give a damn about what the constitution says or means. This is also a huge part of the reason I have little respect for the legal system anymore.

I really like this piece that was written on Facebook. I cut and pasted it here:

https://sigforum.com/eve/forums...0601935/m/4670007934



.

Why is this not considered treason and treated as such? Like each of the first 10 amendments, the 2nd is a restriction on the government. Our inalienable rights do not derive from government at any level.

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.

Da Fuq? Their argument seems to often be that these types of weapons are for a militia to defend against tyranny, which this would certainly fall under, with the advantage still being greatly in the favor of a tyrannical government.

I've not seen where the constitution defines the type of weapons we are allowed to bear.

quote:

Originally posted by Graniteguy:
Ironically - you can still buy an SBR in Mass.

Yes, true.

But perplexing.

Don't forget machine guns. Can still have those as well.

All the pre-ban stuff too, and anything "non-ar pattern," so this is just dicking around.

If a criminal or crazy wants one, they'll find it. Gun laws are stupid.

It's really disgusting.