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.
It damn sure wasn't for hunting..... The hunting firearm put food on the table, the 2nd Amendment firearm makes sure you have a table to put the food on
--Field Marshal Eartick
Me, too. He did an outstanding job.
They have no idea.
Yes, but THAT was under Janet and Bill.
I’m their worst nightmare. A harmless looking old guy who Knows Stuff. And is too old to give a shit anymore.
I don’t understand how a smart lawyer isn’t able to question the judge’s opinions/decisions be declaring that first judges ruled that non military style guns were prohibited from civilian use, then all of A sudden judges flip and now say military guns are not allowed by 2n’d Amendment
A smart lawyer should be able to question the rulings and force the judges to explain how they came to their conclusions when the 2n’d amendment makes no mention of the types of weapons allowed
I guess it’s gonna be me:
http://www.itwillpass.com/guns_what_good_is_a_handgun_against_an_army.shtml
They are protecting and serving the crap out of him!
[[This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced.]]
In one breath he states we can own guns, in another he says ownership of guns is restricted and if people ‘break the safety rules’ they will be banned from owning them. He opens the door to government rules and regulations which restrict who can own guns and who can’t
When you’re too old to give a sh$t and won t out live your ammo. It’s time for come and get them.
On another thread a day or two ago a freeper made the comments that the “well regulated militia” was the government militia. And to keep them under control (”regulated”) - that is why the PEOPLE must be armed - in order to discourage the government militia from getting out of control.
He made some good arguments, including old documents that supported that viewpoint.
Anyway - I would support that type of argument if anybody tried to take away my guns because I’m too old to be in a militia - so why would I need guns.
“I already know my decision.”
The trouble with today versus 250 years ago is that we don’t have many groups of “well regulated” militias. In most cases that has been argued to mean that the regular citizens of a community were well armed AND had training and were ORGANIZED to meet a threat. (Others say that the “milita” are individuals. I believe that the term is a loose term and means both the individual, and groups of individuals).
The first “American” militia in Massachusetts (how far that state has gone downhill) - they were required to train once a week. Men that did not have arms or supplies were provided them by the militia.
At Lexington/Concord there were about 400 “American” militia that turned back the Redcoats. All the New England colonies sent their militias to help in the Siege of Boston. I use the term American in quotes - they were British subjects fighting their own government of course.
Me trying to fight off the police from taking away my God given rights will be an item in the newspaper about the nutcase with an “arsenal” of 12 weapons and 15,000 rounds of ammo.
There shouldn’t be any upper age limit to being in a militia set by the gov.
“Shall not be infringed” apparently isn’t worth the paper it is written on.
Great speech, but he might as well be talking to empty chairs.
What makes you think the supreme court as it is now constituted would decide any differently? After the Obama care ruling, clearly the SCOTUS can’t be relied on.
Colorado’s best bet is to have a recall petition, and get rid of these dumb suckers and have the law repealed.
No an AR15 is not a weapon of war. It’s not that close to what an AK47 or MI6 is. There are already plenty of laws restricting the “weapons of war”.
As far as I’m concerned, every law abiding legal citizen should be able to own whatever they can afford and need to keep them safe.
Gangs in Chicago run around with illegal AK47s in body armor, so the police and citizens are basically at a disadvantage. Likewise people on the border might need some extra fire power when the drug gangs roll through.
George Soros’s radical groups have been arming themselves and preparing to do the same thing here that they have done in Ukraine and Libya etc. Everyone WILL be wishing they had those real assault weapons then.
Whoo Hoo. Love that Speech.
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.