Federal Judge Upholds MA assault weapons ban

HayJenn

Moderator
Jul 2014
66,590
55,242
CA
#1
A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit on Friday challenging Massachusetts's ban on assault weapons. U.S. District Judge William Young said in his ruling that the firearms and large magazines banned by the state in 1998 are “not within the scope of the personal right to ‘bear Arms’ under the Second Amendment.”

The features of a military-style rifle are "designed and intended to be particularly suitable for combat rather than sporting applications," Young wrote. Massachusetts was within its rights since the ban passed directly through elected representatives, Young decided.

“Other states are equally free to leave them unregulated and available to their law-abiding citizens,” Young wrote. “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.”

http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/381957-federal-judge-upholds-massachusetts-assault-weapons-ban

Good, a judge who is for state rights.
 
Likes: 2 people
Sep 2014
2,408
548
Barsoom
#3
Two problems with opinion and why it has no constitutional basis and they are from the first sentence:

For most of our history, mainstream scholarship considered the Second Amendment as nothing more than a guarantee that the several states can maintain “well regulated” militias.
1. The above first sentence is a complete misrepresentation of history and of the Second Amendment.

2. The court relied on, and referenced, every opinion imaginable to support its opinion except the opinions of the framers of the Second Amendment, the purpose of the Second Amendment, and the historical meaning of the words and phrases in the Second Amendment.
 

HayJenn

Moderator
Jul 2014
66,590
55,242
CA
#4
Two problems with opinion and why it has no constitutional basis and they are from the first sentence:



1. The above first sentence is a complete misrepresentation of history and of the Second Amendment.

2. The court relied on, and referenced, every opinion imaginable to support its opinion except the opinions of the framers of the Second Amendment, the purpose of the Second Amendment, and the historical meaning of the words and phrases in the Second Amendment.
I suggest you take you concerns to the judge that over saw this case.

He obviously disagrees with you.
 

HayJenn

Moderator
Jul 2014
66,590
55,242
CA
#6
You could always read the opinion and provide the constitutional basis in the opinion.
Like I said, if you don't like the decision take it up with the judge.

Seems like a lot of these gun matters aren't going your way lately.
 
Nov 2009
3,493
561
Flower Mound, TX (In the basement)
#7
A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit on Friday challenging Massachusetts's ban on assault weapons. U.S. District Judge William Young said in his ruling that the firearms and large magazines banned by the state in 1998 are “not within the scope of the personal right to ‘bear Arms’ under the Second Amendment.”

The features of a military-style rifle are "designed and intended to be particularly suitable for combat rather than sporting applications," Young wrote. Massachusetts was within its rights since the ban passed directly through elected representatives, Young decided.

“Other states are equally free to leave them unregulated and available to their law-abiding citizens,” Young wrote. “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.”

http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/381957-federal-judge-upholds-massachusetts-assault-weapons-ban

Good, a judge who is for state rights.
"Sporting applications", that is not what the Second Amendment is about. If it were it would be a tertiary function. First is protection from a criminal government, second is self-defense, then maybe sporting, but doubtful.

This will go to a higher court and be overturned.
 

HayJenn

Moderator
Jul 2014
66,590
55,242
CA
#8
"Sporting applications", that is not what the Second Amendment is about. If it were it would be a tertiary function. First is protection from a criminal government, second is self-defense, then maybe sporting, but doubtful.

This will go to a higher court and be overturned.
Will see...

But kind of makes me laugh that when judges make decisions that people like - they are all for it

When not - they try to make the judge look like a idiot.
 
Nov 2009
3,493
561
Flower Mound, TX (In the basement)
#9
Any weapon that the law enforcement agencies, federal, state, and local, have at their disposal for use against USA citizens, should also be available to "We the People".

That is the true function of the Second Amendment...protection from an out of control dictatorial government.
 
Nov 2009
3,493
561
Flower Mound, TX (In the basement)
#10
Will see...

But kind of makes me laugh that when judges make decisions that people like - they are all for it

When not - they try to make the judge look like a idiot.
I am NOT saying this judge is an idiot. I doubt he would be a judge if he were. I am saying that we have a difference of opinion as to the meaning of the Second Amendent. I think he is wrong.

We shall see.