This is the second federal court to rule.
“A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit that challenged*Massachusetts’ ban on assault weapons, ruling that the weapons don’t fall within the scope of the Second Amendment,The Hillreports.”
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
There’s the whole “common use” thing again.
I guess being the most popular rifle in the country doesn’t count.
Somehow, each and every challenge ends up before a Dem appointed federal judge. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is the only hope we have. And that’s not saying much.
These Dem judges are so malleable to what they watch on the news and who is paying for their party.
Need some more adults on the benches.
Funny how that works. Also seems to coincidentally happen whenever Trump seems to be trying to enact one of his campaign promises. It’s almost as if “Democracy” only works when the leftists find it useful, and is absolutely horrible and against all bases of human rights, dignity and morality when it goes against their desires.
We need the ATF to make a declaration in it that ARs are in common use. That is the cover that Kennedy needs to rule the way we need. Common sense about ‘common use’ isn’t going to cut it with these tyrants.
So Miller doesn’t have any standing here? That should be enough to get the ARs. Either they are not military arms so that they are kosher, or they are military arms and they are protected.
What SCOTUS needs is lower courts to disagree and then they have a reason to act. The problem is that states/areas that have judges that would rule our way are the areas where they don’t pass these stupid laws. The new Boulder, CO one may be one that gets a good judge, but it frankly doesn’t muster at the State level, so it might not get to the Federal level.
And once again, it is an inalienable right. Rulings by judges don’t take those away,
Hate to say it, but Young was appointed by Reagan.
That being said, I pretty much agree with you.
Reagan era republicans are just as bad on guns. Again, much of the modern gun control movement started with “family values conservatives.” It was only after Clinton took the mantle that gun rights became a right wing cause.
Activist judges are the single greatest threat to liberty at present.
Now it is my turn say “we need a Like button”.
I agree with you 100%.
It’s MA and no judge in MA is going to overturn the states ban, so zero surprises there. I left MA a few years ago for obvious reasons. The judge showed he does not have a f-ing clue what the 2A stands for by saying “The features of a military-style rifle are ‘designed and intended to be particularly suitable for combat rather than sporting applications,’ Young wrote.”
Nothing else can be said.
Isn’t that the damn truth. All the while espousing their “interpretation” of the Constitution. That is where the problem lies, in the “interpretation”. If these wanna be scholars would just use some common damn sense, go with what the law simply states, and quit trying to weave their “opinion” into it we would all be better off for it.
I don’t know which is worse: preachers, lawyers, or judges. I do know that I can count on one hand the very few who I hold in any type of high regard.
Hysteria.
The very, very few AR type weapons that are directly involved in a crime would likely constitute less than 1% of all gun related crimes.
The AR being the most popular sporting carbine, still does not meet the definition of “common use”.
Time and time again the same arguments are again brought before anti gun leaning Judges.
And again though they do not win, they may carve out a small niche where they win.
Until they dont. And again the SCOTUS slaps them down.
The only way these repeated efforts to “fix” something that isn’t a problem is Hysteria.
Assault weapons are considered to be military firearms, U.S. District Judge William Young said in his ruling, therefore disqualifying them from being included in a citizen’s right to “bear arms.”
This one judge could not have been more wrong. I imagine he knows it, and does not care.
“Assault weapons are considered to be military firearms” - S/A AR-15s are NOT in any significant use in any military, anywhere. Maybe less than 1/10,000 of 1% of AR pattern guns in military use are S/A.
"therefore disqualifying them from being included in a citizen’s right to bear arms” - This flys in the face of Miller, which basically said military firearms are protected.
its the same as all we want is the right to be married nothing more
now the gay movement is trying to take away tax exempt from churches and suing those who do not cater to them and force them to compromise and silence their beliefs forced to marry them and force them to work for them or be sued etc…
our kids our now forced to learn new language to call them what they want at the moment
making freedom of speech GONE they have been working on the 1st for a long time and people seem to not care or something ?
the new learning in schools and so on for maybe %1 of the population that now dictates and has the rest of the population in fear of saying the wrong thing or even being able to freely say what they want cause hate speech will land them in trouble
this is built to take away the lock on the door and scare the rest into submission
they can attack and win something like marriage and they did
going after the most popular gun is like marriage and the rest will quickly fall
when we said Marriage is a religious thing anyway just have a union or law for all the legal benefits but they said NO it has to be marriage yet they are not religious at all and attack the very religion that is marriage
so any idea of compromise is pointless we should have learned from the marriage thing
The “moral majority” really isn’t a thing anymore. Other than attempts every now and then to censor pornography preachers are not a threat to my liberty. Lawyers are a crap shoot, there are some really good ones like Sen. Ted Cruz, etc. but then again so were the Obamas and Hillary.
I maintain judges are the biggest potential threat as they wield far too much power.
Yeah, and that old dirtbag Stevens was appointed by Ford.
Yet they are supposed to be a “co-equal” branch of government. Seems like more and more in modern times they are instead the de facto “final say”. It was never intended to be that way.
I also am not one to subscribe to the “infallibility” of judges, even the SCOTUS. Remember, at one time the SCOTUS upheld slavery, and of course the Kelo decision was a real winner. :rolleyes: That is why I really don’t give a damn (personally) what any future SCOTUS ruling on guns entails. I KNOW what my natural Constitutional rights are and they are not open for interpretation to the contrary.
The judicial branch needs to be reigned in.
I might also ask, it seems that the “turncoat” judges (i.e. the ones who end up ruling as liberals) are appointed by Republicans. Is there any relatively modern, like in the last century, example of a Democrat-appointed justice ending up being conservative in their rulings?
I got one: William Byrd Traxler Jr., appointed by Clinton. When he was chief judge of the 4th Cir. he wrote in his decision in Kolbe v. Hogan that: (1) “assault weapons” were covered by the 2nd Amendment, and (2) that all 2nd Amendment cases should be decided using the strict scrutiny standard (laws must be narrowly tailored to meet a compelling government interest), instead of the intermediate standard (used by Judge Young, and others: laws must be substantially constructed to meet a substantial government interest, or something like that [there are various versions]).
WHen you use strict scrutiny, the law rarely wins over the right; when you use intermediate scrutiny, the law usually wins over the right.
Unfortunately, Traxler’s decision was overturned by the 4th Cir. sitting en banc. Judge Young’s deficient decision looks like it was cribbed from the 4th Cir. en banc decision.
Agreed. Not sure why anyone is surprised at this.