Mass Judge Rules AR-15's Not Protected By The Second.

In a victory for anti-gunners, a Massachusetts Federal Judge has ruled "Assault Aeapons" are not protected under the Second.

U.S. District Judge William Young dismissed a lawsuit challenging the 20-year-old ban, saying assault weapons are military firearms that fall beyond the reach of the constitutional right to "bear arms."

For now the ruling means little, as it is restricted to the state of Massachusetts and in fact could become a bittersweet victory for the anti-gunners as it will be appealed to the district level and from there could land before the USSC, where given the current makeup of that body may the USSC very well rule against the lower courts and put an end to any future legislation restricting so called Assault Weapons and or high capacity magazines.

Which would be a major victory for the pro-gun folks.

This is going to be an interesting one to follow for both sides of the isle.

 

I wonder if this judge has ever read Heller or Miller?

 

No decision is carved in stone

 

I read the ruling but cannot find where my coworker saved it, he will be back later today and then I will post it.

Basically cutting through the legalese the judge ruled Heller doesn't apply to military firearms.

This is going to be a very interesting battle as either side could lose it all with this one.

That stated, this just might get chopped at the knees if District overrules the lower court, but of course that would be appealed as well.

 

"U.S. District Judge William Young in Boston ruled that assault weapons and large capacity magazines covered by the 1998 law were most useful in military service and fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment’s personal right to bear arms."

Who decides what is "most useful"? Citizens own millions more of these rifles than the military has M16s/M4s; the military doesn't have a single semiautomatic AR-15 in the inventory; they don't have any rifles at all in calibers other than 5.56mm NATO, 7.62mm NATO. .50 BMG and .300 Winchester Magnum. Any AR-15 chambered in any other caliber has zero utility to the military.

"Young acknowledged that the plaintiffs had cited the semi-automatic AR-15 rifle’s popularity in arguing the law must be unconstitutional because it would ban a class of firearms Americans had overwhelming chosen for legal purposes.
“Yet the AR-15’s present-day popularity is not constitutionally material,” Young wrote. “This is because the words of our Constitution are not mutable. They mean the same today as they did 227 years ago when the Second Amendment was adopted.”"

Young seems unfamiliar with US v Miller, Kolbe v Hogan or Caetano v Massachusetts.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ssachusetts-assault-weapons-ban-idUSKCN1HD2CW

 

That is such a dishonest list of calibers

 

Government Admits AR-15s Are Not Weapons of War
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/07/23/government-admits-ar-15s-not-weapons-war/

 

Oops, talk about one side of the judiciary being clueless about another side of the judiciary deciding on.

Like I said, this is going to be a interesting case to follow.

I just hope it goes to the top.

 

It's going to have to. If "assault weapons" can be banned, then all a state has to do is reclassify firearms in common use for lawful purposes as "assault weapons" to add them to them ban.

What makes a firearm "most useful to the military"?

Another quote from the decision: "The undisputed facts in this record convincingly demonstrate that the AR-15 and LCMs banned by the Act are 'weapons most useful in military service.'"

 

Isn't Mass one of those places where merely removing the AR's pistol grip makes it no longer an 'Assault Weapon'?

 

The law in Massachusetts uses the definition from the 1994 AWB, with some additions. That means that a turkey hunting shotgun is an "assault weapon".

 

In this case the judge did, and on appeal that is where his decision may be overturned.

Judges should form their decisions based on facts and precedence, in this case, it appears the judge moved from judicial to legislative, which makes for a wonderful appeal to have that judges decision overturned by a superior court.

 

I figured California would be the one to force it to the USSC.

 

Agreed, with the Ninth Circus, all kinds of odd rulings have flowed out of there.

And that district has the greatest number of rulings overturned.

Losers at best, legislating from the bench at the worst,

 

One of these is a banned assault weapon in Massachusetts. The other is not. One was used to kill 70 people in Norway. It's not an assault weapon in Massachusetts.

 

This Judge William Young?

 

Do you have a link to this decision? Didn’t this happen last April?

 

Sounds racists to me, if it is black it's evil, if it's brown it's cool.

That's how stupid Assault Weapon laws are.


s

 

Those were fully automatic rifles; the AR-15 sold today is not, and as has been explained many times to you, the typical AR-15 and the Mini-14 picture above fire a lower powered centerfire cartridge with a bullet designed to ensure that it didn't violate the Hague Convention prohibition on bullets designed to maximize wounds. Nothing was new in the design - both the .30-06 used in the M1903 Springfield and the M1 Garand or the 7.62mm x 51mm cartridge used in the M14 were both more powerful and used an FMJ bullet, one first used by the US military in 1906. The cartridge wasn't new, the bullet wasn't new, semiautomatic fire from a rifle wasn't new. It doesn't matter what Stoner's family thought. In fact, his first design was the AR-10, which used the common 7.62 x 51mm round. The Army moved to the 5.56mm because the 7.62mm was too powerful, producing too much recoil, and the ammo for the new rifle was lighter.

 

Yep

http://www.wbur.org/news/2018/04/06/judge-upholds-massachusetts-weapons-ban

 

And therefore they could draft lightweight kids into the conflict.

 

I served before during and after the switch to the M16. I carried the M14 and then switched to the M16. But do prattle on, I mean who would have known?

 

Yet you show so little understanding of those firearms.

The requirement for the M16/5.56mm was to penetrate a helmet at 500 yards. At 500 yards, the M193 at 3250 fps fired from an M16 with a 20" barrel has a velocity of 1506 fps and 273 ft-lbs of energy. The 7.62 mm from the M14 you were first issue, at 500 yards, had a velocity of 1745 fps and 994 ft-lbs of energy. The .30-06 fired from an M1093 Springfield at 50 0yards had a velocity of 1822 fps and 1105 ft-lbs of energy. The .22-250, designed 30 years before the .223 Remington/5.56mm x 45, had a muzzle velocity 500 fps faster than the cartridge designed for the M16/

Stoner may have designed it for the military, but the semiautomatic rifle was 50 years old at the time. The FMJ bullet was 50 years old at the time, and he took 500 fps off of the standard muzzle velocity of the most common cartridge that used the .224 caliber bullet. In other words, his rifle design of a semiautomatic rifle magazine fed rifle was first designed in the US for the hunting market in 1904 used a weakened version of an already weak round.