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

BOSTON (AP) — 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 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 said at the time that gun manufacturers were circumventing the 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 Gun Owners' Action League of Massachusetts and other groups who said the law infringed on their rights under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Their lawsuit said the ban prevents law-abiding residents from buying and possessing some of the most popular rifles in the country.

But Young said the "AR-15's present day popularity is not constitutionally material." The executive director of the Gun Owners' Action League of Massachusetts said he hasn't seen the ruling and couldn't immediately comment

article...

At last a judge with some sense. Let's find more of them.

man i have a bunch and never shot a person. it does violate right of legal owners. fuck your old ghoul ass!

Supreme Court, here we come.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh


https://scontent.fapa1-1.fna.fbcdn.n...36&oe=5B271277

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :error

No it doesnt.. because there are already bans on weapons you can obtain. You cant buy a shoulder launched RPG's, you can buy hand gernades. You have to have special permits to have full auto and can not carry them in public.

There are shitloads of gun/weapon restrictions. The govt has the right to set limits and they can limit types of guns or weapons.

The 2nd amd doesn't specify what you can be "armed" with.. it doesn't say you have the right to guns or naval vessels or armored tanks..

This is all the 2nd and says.....

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It can just as well be argued that you have to be part of a militia to have "arms".. arms could be a bow and arrow...It doesn't state firearms.. it's intentionally vauge to allow states and govt to decide what is appropriate for the times.

No it doesnt.. because there are already bans on weapons you can obtain. You cant buy a shoulder launched RPG's, you can buy hand gernades. You have to have special permits to have full auto and can not carry them in public.

There are shitloads of gun/weapon restrictions. The govt has the right to set limits and they can limit types of guns or weapons.

The 2nd and doesn't specify what you can be "armed" with.. it doesn't say you have the right to guns or naval vessels or armoured tanks..

This is all the 2nd and says.....

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It can just as well be argued that you have to be part of a militia to have "arms".. arms could be a bow and arrow...It doesn't state firearms.. it's intentionally vague to allow states and govt to decide what is appropriate for the times.

So good a reply I only need to copy and paste.

^^ Wrong.

"The right of the people ... shall not be infringed"

we are going to go to war over this and other matters

sure you are kid. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

:1orglaugh

It's been there 3x already on this same issue. This is just another stall tactic that will end in the same way as the others. Why they're not enforcing the current law. It's sole purpose is just to slow down gun buying. IMO it's an abuse of the Federal court system we all pay for.

It will turn out like the last Civil War. The people with the most money will win. The freedom loving Americans will go down in history as the evil ones.

This will simply result in Democrats being defeated in the elections. The dems will lose a ton of seats, just like the last time the did an "assault weapons" ban.

:rasta

We're going straight to the wild wild west
We're going straight to the wild wild west!

Yup. Those freedom loving American slaveholders were unfairly labeled as the evil ones.

:helpme

Not over AR-15's

I don't think they should be illegal, just over 21, licensed and databased, not banned.

If it does head to war it will only be after government & big business have an effective robot army to kill us into submission.

Why do you need an AR-15?

Then that will be democracy in action. If the Republicans lose seats because they refuse to protect people. They will lose.

Do you mean those slavers who fought to keep them?

1) we don't need a stupid 2nd Amendment 2) we don't need guns 3) we need a society where everyone is free to do whatever they want without fear of being shot, anytime

Case in point:



https://youtu.be/a8duH_aMmgw

Forget about need. I do not think anyone "needs" an AR-15. I have an AR-15 and an AK-47 and I don't "need" either of them but I want the right to own both of them. I do not do anything with either of them other than occasionally I take them to the range. I do not hunt any more but I still have hunting rifles and shotguns. The hunting rifles are more accurate than either the AR-15 or AK-47.

An AR-15 is not an Assault Rifle by the way. Assault Rifles are full automatic rifles and an AR-15 is a semi automatic rifle.

libby judge?

The Republicans and independents will come out to vote in large numbers whenever gun rights are threatened.. period.

:pimp

Why dose anyone need a Colt .45 1911 U.S. Army Automatic? (A Real Military Weapon)
Because we can. :thumbsup
https://www.pyramydair.com/blog/wp-c...stol-right.jpg

The gun banners goal is to ban all military weapons or any weapons like them from civilian hands.:2 cents:2 cents

Because we can isn't good enough. You can't own a fully functioning tank or machine gun. The ideas that you should be banned from owning military grade weapons os good.

It will save lives.

So you don't need them, so why do you have them? They're not toys.

Then Democracy will have worked and more children will die.

1.6 Million car crashes a year are caused by cell phones causing about 6,000 deaths in the US

Don't hear anything about that, fucking hypocrites!

they won't ban vehicles every! people use them in mass killings!

I do not need my hunting rifles and shotguns either as I don't hunt anymore but they are my "toys" and I have the legal right to own them and I want the right to own them. Just because a hand full of nuts go on a killing spree, that is not a good enough reason to prevent millions and millions of gun owners that do not go on a killing spree from owning guns. That is my opinion and my opinion is the only one that I place a high value on.

Only in America and only from a crazy American.

Your "toys" cause deaths to innocents.

https://www.google.cz/search?dcr=0&e....0.XnsAFoOZAKI

My "toys" have never caused the death of a single person. The "toys" of tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of American's have not caused the death of a single person. Because a few nuts or irresponsible persons kill a relatively minute percentage of people is not reason enough to deny tens of millions if not hundreds of millions their right to own rifles, shotguns, and hand guns.

So it's OK if other people's children kill someone.

Your words not mine.

I wonder what it is like to wake up in the morning to go on the internet to argue with strangers.

So what would you do to stop children being killed by guns?

Then what would you do to stop innocent adults being killed by guns?

Me personally nothing. I am not an activist. I would suggest that work be done on the mental health end, more be done on enforcing current gun laws, and more be done on educating gun owners on the proper storage of guns and the handling of guns. It is people that kill people and a gun is just an inanimate object.

When I was in High School, almost everyone student in my small rural town, owned one or more guns. Almost every family had one or more guns in the home. Almost every pickup had a rifle/shotgun rack in it with rifles/shoguns in the rack. Parked on the streets downtown, at homes and in the school parking lots.

The point being there were many guns in the hands of adults, teens and preteens. There were a couple of murders during domestic disputes and or a robbery, but other than that there were not any shootings. Not a single child was killed via a firearm in my town. I do not recall a single mass shooting in the nation during those years, though there may have been. In those days there were three networks and zero 24/7 news networks. Generally speaking the three networks had 30 minute news shows presented in the evenings.

Times were different and our society was different. Guns are still prevalent and because of a change in society/people gun use apparently is more frequent. The gun is and always has been an inanimate object. A gun does not kill on its own but a people using a gun do kill people. Work on the people problem not on there weapon of choice to kill one another. The people problem is a small percentage of the population. Tens of millions of people own guns and their guns do not kill anyone and never will.

If only we could turn the clock back to 1970 and all live in a rural community we could solve the problem. :upsidedow

More could be done on mental health, education, enforcement, etc. But it won't stop adults who are too stupid to not allow a juvenile play with a gun, a man with a grudge opening fire on a crowd, school, workplace, club, etc. The problem with that society is cost and the loss of freedom, imagine a world where you had to submit to psychiatrist every six months. Then a policeman coming to your home every few months to make sure you safely store your guns. That's the only way to pick out the dangerous people to the non-dangerous. Or do you think filling a form will be enough?

As you say A gun does not kill on its own but a people using a gun do kill people. Removing guns slows the problem down. No one expects Americans to act like normal people such as Canadians.

Using this logic, removing cars will slow down the problem of drunk drivers.

Why does Paul need a keyboard?

Agreed. But cars are way more essential than guns. Logic.