View Full Version : Assault weapons not covered by 2nd Amendment
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 Hill*reports."
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/04/06/assault-weapons-not-covered-by-second-amendment-federal-judge-rules-in-mass-lawsuit
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Dist. Expert 26
04-06-18, 13:50
There's the whole "common use" thing again.
I guess being the most popular rifle in the country doesn't count.
BoringGuy45
04-06-18, 13:59
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.
SomeOtherGuy
04-06-18, 14:28
Somehow, each and every challenge ends up before a Dem appointed federal judge.
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.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-06-18, 14:31
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,
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.
Hate to say it, but Young was appointed by Reagan.
That being said, I pretty much agree with you.
BoringGuy45
04-06-18, 14:52
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.
Moose-Knuckle
04-06-18, 14:52
Activist judges are the single greatest threat to liberty at present.
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.
Activist judges are the single greatest threat to liberty at present.
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.
Averageman
04-06-18, 15:53
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.
1) "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.
2) "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
Moose-Knuckle
04-06-18, 16:53
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.
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.
Hate to say it, but Young was appointed by Reagan.
That being said, I pretty much agree with you.
Yeah, and that old dirtbag Stevens was appointed by Ford.
I maintain judges are the biggest potential threat as they wield far too much power.
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 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.
It's MA and no judge in MA is going to overturn the states ban, so zero surprises there.
Agreed. Not sure why anyone is surprised at this.
Moose-Knuckle
04-06-18, 18:54
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.
Yup, they put their pants on one leg at a time just like the rest of us mortals.
Woe unto them if they decide to kick the ant hill over.
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.
Ummm, no. Carter was hell on gun owners like you couldn't imagine. Dems like Teddy were never satisfied with the level of gun control imposed by the 1968 Gun Control Act passed under Johnson. Reagan was the FIRST President to largely undo the worst parts of the 1968 GCA.
And before anyone says "machine gun ban" the first one was in the 1968 GCA and it's still there. That is why all "transferable" MP5s began life as a HK94. And the alternative was a "no grandfather clause" complete ban.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?138963-H-R-3155-Racketeer-Weapons-and-Violent-Crime-Control-Act
That is what Reagan was up against and he didn't have a line item veto. No president after Reagan would have ever signed FOPA and pretty safe bet that ALL of them would have been happy to pass something like HR3155, Clinton would have simply added it to his 1994 ban, that is assuming Bush 41 didn't pass it first.
I agree that Republicans aren't always our friends, Bush 41 gave us the 89 Import Ban, but you'd have to go all the way back to JFK to find a "pro gun" Democrat President.
This one judge could not have been more wrong. I imagine he knows it, and does not care.
1) "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.
2) "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.
Fine, if they prefer we have M4s vs AR15s, I'm ok with that ;)
Sometimes I wish the pro gun lobby was like the Clintons. Some judge rules against the Second, a few days later he commits suicide. Politician votes for an anti gun bill, a week later cops find a dead hooker in his car. When in jail awaiting trial he accidentally hangs himself. So on an so forth, you get the idea.
Give it a year and we will never see another anti gun law or ruling ever again.
It works for them...
Dist. Expert 26
04-06-18, 19:37
Sometimes I wish the pro gun lobby was like the Clintons. Some judge rules against the Second, a few days later he commits suicide. Politician votes for an anti gun bill, a week later cops find a dead hooker in his car. When in jail awaiting trial he accidentally hangs himself. So on an so forth, you get the idea.
Give it a year and we will never see another anti gun law or ruling ever again.
It works for them...
For as many extraordinary proficient people as we have in our side I've often wondered the same thing.
Ever read "Term Limits" by Vince Flynn?
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.
I was mainly referring to the SCOTUS appointments.
The_War_Wagon
04-06-18, 20:03
MY 2nd Amendment covers:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/Peacekeeper_missile.jpg
:dirol:
For as many extraordinary proficient people as we have in our side I've often wondered the same thing.
Ever read "Term Limits" by Vince Flynn?
No, but I will check out the book.
I'm sure there are some dudes on our side who aren't new to "wet work."
I know the pendulum of power swings both ways, but right now we have the White House. Maybe some Pelican Brief shinanigans need to go down as well. This is was guys.
Sometimes I wish the pro gun lobby was like the Clintons. Some judge rules against the Second, a few days later he commits suicide. Politician votes for an anti gun bill, a week later cops find a dead hooker in his car. When in jail awaiting trial he accidentally hangs himself. So on an so forth, you get the idea.
Give it a year and we will never see another anti gun law or ruling ever again.
It works for them...
Sadly there isn't much money or political power to be gained by securing the rights and freedoms of your average person. There is quite a bit of money and power to be gained by restricting those rights, especially if you can do it under to guise of safety, equality or in some cases protecting freedom.
Sometimes I wish the pro gun lobby was like the Clintons. Some judge rules against the Second, a few days later he commits suicide. Politician votes for an anti gun bill, a week later cops find a dead hooker in his car. When in jail awaiting trial he accidentally hangs himself. So on an so forth, you get the idea.
Give it a year and we will never see another anti gun law or ruling ever again.
It works for them...
this !
Diamondback
04-07-18, 04:24
MY 2nd Amendment covers:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/Peacekeeper_missile.jpg
:dirol:
*Will Smith voice* "Now that's what *I'm* talkin' about..." *then he gets handed the Noisy Cricket*
Sadly there isn't much money or political power to be gained by securing the rights and freedoms of your average person. There is quite a bit of money and power to be gained by restricting those rights, especially if you can do it under to guise of safety, equality or in some cases protecting freedom.
Steyr,
I'm not expecting a pro gun politician(s) to do this. You are right, they just pay us lip service and stab us in the back as soon as it becomes advantageous. When I said the gun lobby I mean all the pro gun organizations and all gun owners. As a whole. Need to start playing dirty. Playing by the rules of the Left. I said it before, we will never win if we refuse to accept that the game is played by their rules now.
ANTIFA doesn't like something, the burn down a Starbucks. BLM doesn't like something, they burn down an entire downtown area. We don't like something, we bitch and moan on the internet. Politicians need to fear us the same way they fear those groups. All of George Soros's money won't mean anything when they know if they cross us some shit is going to go down. They know that they can ass rape us ten ways to Sunday and we will just grumble a bit and then go to work.
I don't know man, maybe it's just the Russian (Ukrainian) Jew Revolutionary in me, but this inaction is painful to watch.
Diamondback
04-07-18, 06:52
I don't know man, maybe it's just the Russian (Ukrainian) Jew Revolutionary in me, but this inaction is painful to watch.
Claire Wolfe said something similar... "America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
I'm still hoping that Boxes 2 and 3 (Ballot and Jury, 1 being Soap) haven't been totally Checkmated yet, myself... but I'm stocking up on Box #4, and I can understand why some of you guys are crackin' boxes and rackin' loaded mags.
Steyr,
I'm not expecting a pro gun politician(s) to do this. You are right, they just pay us lip service and stab us in the back as soon as it becomes advantageous. When I said the gun lobby I mean all the pro gun organizations and all gun owners. As a whole. Need to start playing dirty. Playing by the rules of the Left. I said it before, we will never win if we refuse to accept that the game is played by their rules now.
ANTIFA doesn't like something, the burn down a Starbucks. BLM doesn't like something, they burn down an entire downtown area. We don't like something, we bitch and moan on the internet. Politicians need to fear us the same way they fear those groups. All of George Soros's money won't mean anything when they know if they cross us some shit is going to go down. They know that they can ass rape us ten ways to Sunday and we will just grumble a bit and then go to work.
I don't know man, maybe it's just the Russian (Ukrainian) Jew Revolutionary in me, but this inaction is painful to watch.
Problem is "we" have things to lose. Family, jobs and property. If "we" burn down Starbucks we lose our gun rights.
Steyr,
I'm not expecting a pro gun politician(s) to do this. You are right, they just pay us lip service and stab us in the back as soon as it becomes advantageous. When I said the gun lobby I mean all the pro gun organizations and all gun owners. As a whole. Need to start playing dirty. Playing by the rules of the Left. I said it before, we will never win if we refuse to accept that the game is played by their rules now.
ANTIFA doesn't like something, the burn down a Starbucks. BLM doesn't like something, they burn down an entire downtown area. We don't like something, we bitch and moan on the internet. Politicians need to fear us the same way they fear those groups. All of George Soros's money won't mean anything when they know if they cross us some shit is going to go down. They know that they can ass rape us ten ways to Sunday and we will just grumble a bit and then go to work.
I don't know man, maybe it's just the Russian (Ukrainian) Jew Revolutionary in me, but this inaction is painful to watch.
I don't disagree with this at all. I keep thinking that one of these days the left is gonna push the wrong button. When it gets to that point though I think it's gonna be too late and we'll be seeing straight up war. The left doesn't think it will happen, but IMHO they're in for a rude awakening when the straw finally breaks the camel's back.
I agree. The inaction is painful to watch, and our "high road" approach does nothing but embolden the left because they quite frankly don't think we will do anything. A lot of that reasoning is the below.
Problem is "we" have things to lose. Family, jobs and property. If "we" burn down Starbucks we lose our gun rights.
This is a lot of it too. We have shit to pay for, and a job to keep.
Problem is "we" have things to lose. Family, jobs and property. If "we" burn down Starbucks we lose our gun rights.
As individual actors, for sure. As a mass of hundreds or even thousands I doubt it. Cops can't arrest 1000 guys in PCs carrying ARs.
I don't disagree with this at all. I keep thinking that one of these days the left is gonna push the wrong button. When it gets to that point though I think it's gonna be too late and we'll be seeing straight up war. The left doesn't think it will happen, but IMHO they're in for a rude awakening when the straw finally breaks the camel's back.
This is a lot of it too.
I doubt it. Based on all the discussions I've seen there will never be a straight up war. Everyone will retreat to their castles and look at their neighbor's house being raided and say "Shit man, glad it's not me! I told Bob, not to post that on Facebook!"
Steyr,
I'm not expecting a pro gun politician(s) to do this. You are right, they just pay us lip service and stab us in the back as soon as it becomes advantageous. When I said the gun lobby I mean all the pro gun organizations and all gun owners. As a whole. Need to start playing dirty. Playing by the rules of the Left. I said it before, we will never win if we refuse to accept that the game is played by their rules now.
ANTIFA doesn't like something, the burn down a Starbucks. BLM doesn't like something, they burn down an entire downtown area. We don't like something, we bitch and moan on the internet. Politicians need to fear us the same way they fear those groups. All of George Soros's money won't mean anything when they know if they cross us some shit is going to go down. They know that they can ass rape us ten ways to Sunday and we will just grumble a bit and then go to work.
I don't know man, maybe it's just the Russian (Ukrainian) Jew Revolutionary in me, but this inaction is painful to watch.
I can't think of anything that would polarize the majority of the country against pro-gun activists than watching them march down the street of some major city carrying "assault rifles" and wearing plate carriers.
I keep thinking we need to start state militias :) that way the OH its for militia use is now mute
getting say 10k out of each state for a start total half a million folks involved with a large % of military retired
militia of 100 is a nut job to many but half a million folks you cant say that and with so many X military
the idea of military turning on their own vs other citizens those on the edge might say NO vs OK I am being ordered
just like LEO that are not on our side will be thinking twice
yeah pros cons to it but at this point I do fear and think we are going to loose the 2nd if we do not push back
the fear/downside of some idiots coming in and being idiots is real though so the downsides are there but nutters are nutters so nobody wants to be attached to them ?
Moose-Knuckle
04-08-18, 04:27
ANTIFA doesn't like something, the burn down a Starbucks. BLM doesn't like something, they burn down an entire downtown area. We don't like something, we bitch and moan on the internet. Politicians need to fear us the same way they fear those groups.
US elected officials do not fear Antifa, BLM, Occupy, etc. They are clowns. They are unorganized useful idiots being played as political pawns for spectacle on the television. There have been two police shootings of "unarmed black men" in CA and NYC recently and the media is not sensationalizing them like they have in the past because they are no longer the flavor of the week. I have been following them online and they are not getting any national traction.
People in power DO fear ten million gun owners knowing they own many more small-arms that can be passed around when the shit gets real.
Ruby Ridge and Waco were basically tests to see how far they could go. During the same era I remember hearing/reading about selective active duty personnel being given surveys with questions like "If given an order would you fire upon US citizens?". No right or wrongs answers merely probing to see where things are at.
It appears that they re-visit disarmament aka "gun-control" every decade to test the waters.
IMHO, we are witnessing them intensifying their efforts and find ourselves in the midst of a PSYOP / mass persuasion campaign to shape the general population's perspective on personal ownership of small-arms.
I can't think of anything that would polarize the majority of the country against pro-gun activists than watching them march down the street of some major city carrying "assault rifles" and wearing plate carriers.
Imagine if John Parker and his men cared more about public opinion than their Rights.
I bet they had wives, children and bills to pay as well.
I just saw a list on another forum where now semi auto handguns with detachable magazines are being considered "Assault Weapons". I believe it came from the Vermont law, but not sure.
I just saw a list on another forum where now semi auto handguns with detachable magazines are being considered "Assault Weapons". I believe it came from the Vermont law, but not sure.
It's already part of NJ law. Any handgun that accepts a box magazine outside of the grip or has a barrel shroud or a flash hider of weighs more than 50oz is an assault weapon. Basically any AR Pistol or similar.
I just saw a list on another forum where now semi auto handguns with detachable magazines are being considered "Assault Weapons". I believe it came from the Vermont law, but not sure.
Semantics. Mine is considered a unicorn rainbow embracer. See how easy that is? Not quite as dangerous as the ones in Vermont.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.