ArizonaShooting.com

"The #1 Resource for Shooters in Arizona!"
It is currently April 26th, 2018, 4:38 am


All times are UTC - 7 hours


Custom Search





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Judge: Assault weapons ban doesn't violate 2nd Amendment
New postPosted: April 6th, 2018, 12:05 pm 
Offline
AZS Regular
AZS Regular
User avatar

Joined: April 11th, 2012, 10:26 am
Posts: 121
https://www.yahoo.com/news/federal-judg ... 58843.html

Quote:
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's decision comes as 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 can't be considered a "military weapon" because it cannot fire in fully automatic mode.

But Young dismissed that idea, 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 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 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 and other groups who said the law infringed on their rights under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

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 they will appeal the ruling.

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

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Judge: Assault weapons ban doesn't violate 2nd Amendment
New postPosted: April 6th, 2018, 12:29 pm 
Offline
AZS Addict
AZS Addict

Joined: March 31st, 2005, 7:15 am
Posts: 724
Location: Surprise
Just saw this too, wonder who appointed him


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Judge: Assault weapons ban doesn't violate 2nd Amendment
New postPosted: April 6th, 2018, 12:32 pm 
Offline
AZS Regular
AZS Regular
User avatar

Joined: April 11th, 2012, 10:26 am
Posts: 121
isnake wrote:
Just saw this too, wonder who appointed him

Quote:
Young, William G.

Born 1940 in Huntington, NY
Federal Judicial Service
Judge, U. S. District Court, District of Massachusetts

Nominated by Ronald Reagan on March 8, 1985, to a new seat created by 98 Stat. 333; Confirmed
by the Senate on April 3, 1985, and received commission on April 4, 1985.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Judge: Assault weapons ban doesn't violate 2nd Amendment
New postPosted: April 6th, 2018, 12:42 pm 
Offline
AZS Addict
AZS Addict

Joined: July 16th, 2006, 5:35 pm
Posts: 531
"now hey back to your toil peasants..."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Judge: Assault weapons ban doesn't violate 2nd Amendment
New postPosted: April 7th, 2018, 11:43 am 
Offline
AZS; Woohoo!
AZS; Woohoo!

Joined: January 12th, 2011, 6:05 pm
Posts: 1463
Location: BHC
This has always confused me. I thought in US v Miller, which I understand did not reach conclusion, the Govt was arguing that arms not in service with the military were not protected. It would seem the logical argument the govt was making was arms in common usage by the military would be protected under the 2nd Amendment. Oh well, I guess this is why I am not a lawyer.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Judge: Assault weapons ban doesn't violate 2nd Amendment
New postPosted: April 7th, 2018, 12:40 pm 
Offline
AZS; Woohoo!
AZS; Woohoo!
User avatar

Joined: June 2nd, 2008, 1:14 pm
Posts: 2345
isnake wrote:
Just saw this too, wonder who appointed him


Does it make any difference? Roberts was a "conservative" yet he rewrote the law as part of his decision on obamacare to make the pnalty a tax so it was legally imposed by congress.

I think when they get in a position of power, where they will likely never be removed except by the grim reaper, they all become full of themselves. Look at Ginsberg, while she is as liberal as they come how can anyone justify "looking to international law" to decide a US constitutional matter.

_________________
"Peace Is A Dream Only Achieved When Good Men Are Willing To Commit Great Violence Upon Evil Men


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Judge: Assault weapons ban doesn't violate 2nd Amendment
New postPosted: April 7th, 2018, 2:06 pm 
Offline
AZS Regular
AZS Regular

Joined: June 26th, 2005, 2:22 pm
Posts: 221
Location: Cortez
In my mind this is the thorn:

"Regulation of the weapons is a matter of policy, not for the courts, he said."

I would like to know if this is just from his post ruling conversation or if it is part of the formal decision.

Thank you,
Mr.Smith


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Judge: Assault weapons ban doesn't violate 2nd Amendment
New postPosted: April 7th, 2018, 6:15 pm 
Offline
AZS is my home
AZS is my home
User avatar

Joined: March 26th, 2009, 3:01 pm
Posts: 3878
ynotaz wrote:
isnake wrote:
Just saw this too, wonder who appointed him


Does it make any difference? Roberts was a "conservative" yet he rewrote the law as part of his decision on obamacare to make the pnalty a tax so it was legally imposed by congress.

I think when they get in a position of power, where they will likely never be removed except by the grim reaper, they all become full of themselves. Look at Ginsberg, while she is as liberal as they come how can anyone justify "looking to international law" to decide a US constitutional matter.


He didn't rewrite the law. What he did (that most people, especially your elected hired help) was validate that it was a tax - a revenue bill - and unfortunately stopped short of pointing out that , per Article I Section 7, "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives..." Since this abomination originated in the Senate, it was automatically null and void. More unfortunately, damned few of the hired help, and the vast majority of the electorate, are Constitutional illiterates.

_________________
“I won't be wronged. I won't be insulted. I won't be laid a-hand on. I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them.”
― John Wayne


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 


All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group