Posted on 04/06/2018 7:13:35 PM PDT by Kaslin
Well, it was not a good day for the stock market and it wasn’t a good day for gun rights. A federal judge decided to uphold a law that already strengthened the state’s ban on so-called assault weapons. The judge went on the whole weapons of war tangent in his opinion (via Bloomberg)
Massachusetts’ beefed-up ban on assault weapons doesn’t violate the Second Amendment of the Constitution, a U.S. judge ruled, handing a victory to gun-control advocates seeking to pass such a law nationwide following a spate of deadly mass shootings.
"The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional rights to ‘bear arms,’" U.S. District Judge William Young wrote in a decision Thursday in Boston, dismissing a lawsuit over the state law.
Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey was sued by a gun-rights group in response to her July 2016 enforcement notice that broadened the definition of "copies or duplicates" of AR-15 and AK-47 models that are prohibited under the state’s 1998 assault-weapon bans.
“These are weapons of war that belong on the battlefield, and we were pleased today to see yet another court agree with that stance,” Kris Brown, co-president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said in a statement.
In Boulder, Colorado, the council is moving forward to ban AR-15s within the city limits. High capacity magazines and bump stocks will also be prohibited (via Fox31 Denver):
The Boulder City Council passed the first read of an ordinance that will ban the sale and possession of assault weapons in the city,.
The ordinance was passed unanimously after a five-hour hearing during which nearly 150 people spoke.
The proposed ordinance would also ban high-capacity magazines and bump stocks.
The city council will possibly vote on the measure two more times before it becomes law.
Councilwoman Jill Adler Grano said, “This is not a knee-jerk reaction.”
Folks, this is why when the Left says we want a new ban on so-called assault weapons (i.e. guns we think that look scary), don’t give in; they’ll take a mile. And while there have been multiple legal challenges on existing assault weapons bans, the Supreme Court refuses to hear arguments. I get it. We have a right to bear arms, every state to a certain degree recognizes carry rights, more states have adopted constitutional carry laws (no permit required), and Second Amendment proponents have scored big on the legal front in the past regarding the Heller and McDonald decisions. Yes, the late Justice Antonin Scalia said that no right is absolute and states are free to pass laws regulating how this right is exercised, but this is not simple gun control; it’s a ban. The magazine limits give the game away. You cannot own an AR-15 rifle, which will be added into the news coverage. What will be missed are the scores of handguns that carry more than ten rounds, which will also be banned.
In Illinois, Deerfield, a suburb of Chicago, banned residents from owning AR-15 rifles and high capacity magazines. They have until June to turn them over to the authorities, destroy them, or transfer them out of the village limits. Owners risk a $1,000/day fine for non-compliance. So, the Second Amendment is dead in this slice of America. They’re instituting a gun ban—and threatening law-abiding gun owners with quasi-eviction if they don’t bend to the will of the state. In Oregon, a church group is also collecting signatures for a ballot initiative that would also force law-abiding gun owners to turn over, register, destroy, or transfer out of the state their firearms. This is why the anti-gun Left cannot be trusted. This is why the Supreme Court needs to weigh in. we’re past simple laws now; the local authorities in these deep-blue pockets of America are coming after the Second Amendment and the people who exercise that right. You can’t live here if you want to own a firearm. That’s grossly unconstitutional.
Because they're from the government and they're there to help him.
Eh, let’s play devil’s advocate and say that it strictly applies to the militia.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
So, umm, yeah, seems like every male 17-45 should have full access to whatever weapons they want since they’re part of the militia.
Nah, Ruby Ridge.
US V Miller 1939 The Supreme Court ruled in 1939 that Miller couldn’t own a sawed off shotgun because the government attorney said the military didn’t use them therefore Miller as a member of the ‘militia’ couldn’t own and possess one either.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/case.html
“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.
The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power —
“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”
With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.”
Continuing in the Devil’s Advocate role...
Should us 60+ guys give up our weapons of war?
For that matter anyone 46 and over?
Liberals seem to have forgotten that was done by Democrats .... Janet Reno and Bill Clinton ....
Again. Refuse to comply.
If we’re just going to OBEY and give in, why have them at all? No “boating accidents” crap, either.
Our guns are for THAT day.
That day is here, in some places.
We have decisions to make, folks... because THEY will use lethal force against us to make us comply.
I already know my decision. And some folks aren’t going to be too happy.
Which I guess means I'd have to give up my firearms, my wife would have to give up hers, and my daughter as well. To eliminate in one sweeping move all the idiotic and patchwork laws in this country restricting firearms and ammunition, I'd do it in a heartbeat.
Since I know the 2nd is a proscription against the government, like all of the bill of rights, I bring this up not to limit firearms from women or those over 45, but to show plainly that the whole ‘it's just for the militia’ argument is just a cop-out. It's a justification to steal natural rights and jealously hoard the right of self defense for the government to dole out as it sees fit, or deny entirely.
Plus the original text of the amendments is extremely plain that it is a proscription against the government limiting weapons and never an enabler for their taking of rights.
I bookmarked that! That man speaks for me.
The framers meant muskets! It was what was needed to defend against other muskets. If our gov’t has much stronger weaponry than citizens, we are subject to be subjects again!
You are right. The left is depending on compliance. They can’t win any other way. They either want you to turn them in or hide them in a wall. They know that the hidden rifle by a compliant citizen can’t stand in the way of tyranny. Your rifle in a wall or “lost in a boating accident” isn’t any good. Without use, practice and passing the love of freedom and shooting to our children, the left wins.
When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.
Don’t let the left pry freedom from the cold dead hands of all those who gave up their lives for it.
Great Question!!!
REWARD FOR INFORMATION
“They can pass laws, but who’s going to enforce them?”
In CA these laws are nearly universally ignored.
I don’t know of anyone that has turned in a single rifle.
Of course, that makes range time hard.
It helps to dry fire and make mag changes in your living room.
That said, it’s nearly impossible to unlearn how to handle an AR well.
I think when one looks at historical context as to who owned the cannons used in the revolutionary war as well as harp guns, duck foot pistols, grenades, bombs, ships of war, etc, that there was never any original interpretation of it simply meaning muskets. Nor do arms limit to firearms, but includes all weapons and tools of defense including swords, knives, and heck, even pitchforks and brass knuckles.
All of these interpretations have one singular goal, to eliminate the natural right of self defense. Defense against any aggressor be it neighbor or government.
Where Is He Now?
Ruby Ridge was George HW Bush
Why, the latest in Gun Control of course.
Give them an inch and they will take a mile.
SCOTUS has to put a stop to this crap.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.