Mass. District Court Upholds Ban On AR15 Rifles and "Copies"

[BEER]

http://www.recoilweb.com/federal-di...protected-by-the-second-amendment-136345.html

Yesterday, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a 47 page opinion in Worman v. Healey, No. 1:17-10107-WGY, dismissing the Plaintiffs’ challenge to the Enforcement Notice issued by Attorney General Maura Healy in July 2016 and granting summary judgment to Defendants on the Plaintiffs’ claim that the Massachusetts Assault Weapons Ban violates the Second Amendment and the phrase “copies or duplicates” is unconstitutionally vague.

Banning ‘weapons that are most useful for military service' is the exact opposite of constitutional.

Edit: Didn't see this posted. If it has been, please feel free to delete or merge.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

They should just treat them the same they treat full auto weapons.

problem solved

 

[Seano]

Banning ‘weapons that are most useful for military service' is the exact opposite of constitutional.
.

I'd like to hear an explanation on this one.

 

[abiG]

I'd like to hear an explanation on this one.

The founders were not concerned at all with specific kinds of weapons; they were concerned with specific types of government.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Zero integrity on the part of the court.

 

[HockeyBjj]

Another court circuit where rather than correctly interpreting the law and constitution, they’re making a ruling to set the law at whatever their feelings say it should be

 

[BEER]

I'd like to hear an explanation on this one.

The second amendment did not use specific examples of "arms" because they understood that arms were progressing and by limited their definition of the word, would limit rights going forward.

The intention of an armed populace had everything to do with the civilian war against Britain. Knowing what governments are capable of, they wanted to insure the American people never allowed their government of fulfilling that capability.

 

[Stoic1]

Massholes.

 

[xcvbn]

They should just treat them the same they treat full auto weapons.

problem solved

So ban semi-auto rifles?


GLWT

 

[Fedorable]

go try to buy some, record it, sue. Told my 18 year old cousin to do that in Fl.

 

[RerouteToRemain]

So ban semi-auto rifles?


GLWT

Nfa item

 

[Fawlty]

Banning ‘weapons that are most useful for military service' is the exact opposite of constitutional.

That line of argument is a long dead end. The argument today is for the individual right, and limitations can in fact be placed on that right, and that will be clarified by courts like this one over time. New era of the second amendment started about 10 years ago.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

http://www.recoilweb.com/federal-di...protected-by-the-second-amendment-136345.html



Banning ‘weapons that are most useful for military service' is the exact opposite of constitutional.

Edit: Didn't see this posted. If it has been, please feel free to delete or merge.

It is, but they went down that path a long time ago when the courts ruled that the govt could ban certain weapons.

 

[oldshadow]

Liberal court making law from the bench, nothing new.

Let's see what happens when it gets to the supreme court.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

It is, but they went down that path a long time ago when the courts ruled that the govt could ban certain weapons.

SCOTUS never ruled that. They ruled in favor of the NFA, but that was a tax and not a ban.

 

[lifelessheap]

More useful for the military? What in the fuck.

Can the Left stop pretending they aren't trying to destroy our rights?

 

[Scrody]

Sad.

 

[badascan]

Will buy one the first opportunity I get...

 

[VivaRevolution]

They should just treat them the same they treat full auto weapons.

problem solved

This atleast, would be constitutional.

 

[BEER]

That line of argument is a long dead end. The argument today is for the individual right, and limitations can in fact be placed on that right, and that will be clarified by courts like this one over time. New era of the second amendment started about 10 years ago.

The "new era" of the second amendment started long before ten years ago. It was unconstitutional then, and it's unconstitutional now. That's the issue. Then, just like now, I'm sure there were a lot of people saying "don't worry, we won't take your guns". Slowly, but surely, they're getting to the point that they can't continue using that line with a straight face.