U.S. judge upholds Massachusetts assault weapons ban

[eyecanshoot]

Wasn't it ruled by a higher court that short barreled shotguns were not protected by the 2A because they served no military purpose? Now we have an ignorant judge ruling that an AR 15 isn't protected by the 2A because they are too similar to weapons used by the military.

This is a rogue judge that should be removed from the bench for making unlawful rulings.

[gummy jones]

A robe and a fancy cherry wood bench makes you really smart and moral and stuff...

[kobsw]

1

[Justin///M]

I just read the 47 page ruling, and it's disgusting how it quotes and cherry picks Heller out of context.

How can the SCOTUS not want to hear this and over rule it?

He kept quoting a single sentence about banning M-16s and the like, without the rest of the context,

"“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service – M-16 rifles and the like – may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty.”"


I'm not a lawyer, so maybe gunlawyer can help, but I do not read that as authorizing a ban on AR style rifles at all.

[Statkowski]

But wasn't it the Miller decision that stated non-military style stuff was outside the realm of the second amendment? Miller said military style stuff was covered, now this judge says the opposite.

[stainless]

Coming soon to an area near you.

The shot heard 'round the world, part two.

[Pilot321]

As I've stated many times before, rulings like this aren't because these judges aren't familiar with the 2nd amendment and it's intent it's because they are demonstrating their defiance against the US Constitution. They believe the Constitution no longer applies to them and their rulings.

^^^^^This. It is purposeful defiance with the belief that the PEOPLE will not hold them accountable. And being Massachusetts, they are right. Most of the people there agree with this ruling.

[TaePo]

As I've stated many times before, rulings like this aren't because these judges aren't familiar with the 2nd amendment and it's intent it's because they are demonstrating their defiance against the US Constitution. They believe the Constitution no longer applies to them and their rulings.

^^^^^This. It is purposeful defiance with the belief that the PEOPLE will not hold them accountable. And being Massachusetts, they are right. Most of the people there agree with this ruling.

What members of those kind of states forget is that the Constitution defines what the limitations of government are and the Bill of Rights are a few enumerated rights that belong only to individuals. A person is not forced to vote, nor forced to have legal representation when accused of crimes, one is not required to not incriminate one's self, one is not required to own a firearm or become familiar with one. However, if you want to exercise some of these rights, you may do so.

IMHO, if citizens of a state want to vote down conceal carry, open carry or all carry; go right ahead. But citizens of other states maintain the right to keep and bear arms even if conducting business inside your state (Mass for example). Don't cry your citizens are in danger because they are unarmed and all visitors around them are not disarmed. Maybe you should have allowed the option for your citizens to arm themselves or not as they see fit.

It really is all about control. Why must the right be legally curtailed? We are to be judged by peers after a criminal act is alleged. Until that time, I am law abiding and should be left alone to choose my options in life as I live it and see fit.

[Didnotcomply89]

No no no no. That judge has the concept of a Constitutional Republic all wrong. I also don't care what men/women in silly robes seem to think or rule.

[Parrisk]