|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 6, 2018, 04:32 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 23, 2013
Location: Alabama
Posts: 2,969
|
Judge upholds Massachusettes ban on AR15s
what will be next to be banned?
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/06...dge-rules.html reasoning was that the 2nd Amendment does not cover military type small arms or small arms originally designed for the military. Last edited by JERRYS.; April 6, 2018 at 04:35 PM. Reason: spelling of massacheusettes... |
April 6, 2018, 04:51 PM | #2 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,894
|
Quote:
... and if that logic stands, there is no need for 2A appeal. It has effectively been defined away. Is there ANY modern firearm/design now being manufactured for general use that did not get its start as a military weapon -- going back as far as the lever-action Henry and evolving through the `98 Mauser ? . Last edited by mehavey; April 6, 2018 at 05:00 PM. |
|
April 6, 2018, 05:17 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 23, 2013
Location: Alabama
Posts: 2,969
|
I did not read where this case was going to be appealed to a higher (and much wiser?) court.
as with new York state and its seven round magazine limit, or new jersey and its hollow point ammunition restriction..... the SCOTUS has not taken these sort of cases up. |
April 6, 2018, 05:44 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
The title of this thread is a tad misleading.
Just to clarify it, there's not much new here. The Massachusetts ban has been on the books since 1998; the District Court ruling upholds an existing law.
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. |
April 6, 2018, 05:57 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,894
|
Evan, it upholds an existing law, based upon a constitutional interpretation that is not only specious at best but.....
"...the judge pointed out that the design of semi-automatic AR-15's is based on guns "that were first manufactured for military purposes" and that the AR-15 is "common and well-known in the military." "The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to 'bear arms,'" That such a statement is patently ridiculous is beyond question of anyone who has a basic command of the English language (much less history) and further opens the option to ban ALL weapons... from the Brown Bess to the `98 Mauser ... w/o any recourse. The implications are mind-boggling.... |
April 6, 2018, 06:00 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
It is not that SCOTUS has not taken them up. They have positively decided NOT to take them up. They have allowed the precedents for such bans to build up. Scalia, Thomas and Gorsuch dissented vigorously to no avail.
There is no higher court that is wiser. The lower court opinions are taking Scalia's prose and ramming down the throat of the RBKA proponents. You may argue that he didn't mean this or that but that's not the way it's coming down. Heller was a very, very, mixed bag. I also note, and have said before, that legislation was proposed to block state laws such as this. However, the ruling party had other priorities (guns were not one) and the national organizations had no strategy or tactics to hold the Congress' feet to the fire. The motivations for this inaction are open to interesting interpretations.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
April 6, 2018, 06:59 PM | #7 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 2, 2015
Location: Cottleville, Missouri
Posts: 1,115
|
Quote:
Things that build up eventually 'blow up'. It is a gamble, but another constitutionally minded Justice or two could really work in the country's favor when it does 'blow up'.
__________________
Vegetarian... primitive word for lousy hunter! |
|
April 6, 2018, 07:42 PM | #8 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 23, 2013
Location: Alabama
Posts: 2,969
|
Quote:
|
|
April 6, 2018, 08:02 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 21, 2016
Posts: 629
|
Yep title is very confusing - MA is almost as bad as CA with gun laws and laws in general, really a terrible place I wish I did not live so close to.
|
April 6, 2018, 08:32 PM | #10 | ||
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,833
|
Quote:
The same logic also says that there is no protected speech if written on a typewriter, word processor, computer, internet, or any thing other than written on parchment with a quill pen and iron gall ink. And, so, therefore the government may censor or outright prohibit any speech using modern communications. Quote:
The military didn't buy many of Colt's first revolvers, but later, they bought a LOT of his following models. The first semi autos were ignored by the world's militaries, who later changed their minds as more suitable designs came along. Tell me a Ruger No.1 got its start as a military weapon. It didn't. You can make a case for the general design of a falling block having been used as a military weapon in the past, but you can't claim the ruger as anything but a pure sporting arm. The double barrel and pump action shotgun didn't get its start as a military weapon, and I'd venture to say neither did the semi auto. And, even those arms which were designed for military use aren't anything to be ashamed of. They are our right. And that's their entire argument, that we shouldn't have military arms, period. This was also the opinion of the Crown troops attempting to quell those rowdy colonials in Massachusetts. On April 19th, 1775, they tried to do something about it. It appears that what they failed to do, then, is being done now by a Massachusetts judge...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
||
April 6, 2018, 08:35 PM | #11 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,454
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If a bill was going to lose a vote because a moral panic had gripped public conversation, why would a national organization want to see that vote taken? People can complain now about the NRA not holding congressional feet to the fire, however following Newtown and this year's events, we saw people here decrying argument and adopting the beauty school standard for arguments - that it doesn't matter what one argues; it matters what opponents feel about what is said.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
||||
April 7, 2018, 12:01 AM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 26, 2018
Posts: 380
|
It's MA.......what can you expect?
I've been thinking about this sad result off and on since I read about it but the pendulum swings the other way sooner or later. |
April 7, 2018, 01:08 AM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 21, 2016
Posts: 629
|
I'm not sure it will ever swing the other way in MA - place has gone from bad to worst to ridiculous over time.
MA has even gone as far as to bump jail sentences for many of their "misdemeanors" up to 2.5 years, for offenses where nobody has ever even served a day in jail in the history of the state, simply to create a federal felony & prohibit firearms access. The state does not actually prohibit the access, they just worked the system so the feds do it for them. Weird stuff is illegal in MA as well - like I don't think you can even buy a Glock there, Boston has it's own set of firearms regs that differ from the rest of the state. Local police chiefs make decisions on LTC which can be denied for any subjective reason. Tonight I was feverishly searching for a 15 round mag that I could not find, paranoid it had fallen into my truck somewhere and that I'd be driving around with it in MA. Luckily was just in a pocket in my shooting bag I forgot to empty - just living near the place adds stress to a gun owner. |
April 7, 2018, 06:41 AM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
1. The original MA "assault weapons" ban was not permanent.
2. The MA Gunowners Action League entered into a deal with governor Romney that made the ban permanent. 3. Many years later along comes a gun hating MA attorney general who re-interpreted the "assault weapons" ban to include guns without evil features like flash hiders and collapsible stocks. 4. A federal judge blessed the new interpretation of the law. The MA AG: https://www.nationalreview.com/corne...sault-weapons/ Last edited by thallub; April 7, 2018 at 07:30 AM. |
April 7, 2018, 11:48 AM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 7, 2007
Location: Charlottesville, VA
Posts: 941
|
What will be next? Any centerfire firearm that can hold more than 10 rounds regardless of the magazine. If the gun can hold a box magazine that could hold more than 10 rounds even though there are no such magazines in existence it will eventually be banned.
|
April 7, 2018, 10:29 PM | #16 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 16, 2013
Posts: 280
|
Quote:
The other major problem is that too many of the judges on these courts are lacking in basic gun knowledge. As has been pointed out, every gun is either military in its original design, or uses a military component, or was not military originally but later was adopted for military use. So the whole argument about "military guns," "weapons of war," etc...is a false front. Another tricky part you have to watch that the New York judge used to uphold the New York state Assault Weapons Ban was that since "military-style features" make the weapon ergonomically more easier to use, then they thus make the weapon more deadly. That IMO is a nonsense argument for multiple reasons, but it is one that gun banners on the courts will use. |
|
April 8, 2018, 05:44 AM | #17 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 2, 2015
Location: Cottleville, Missouri
Posts: 1,115
|
Quote:
Let's see where they stand come November 7th because I believe it will be in a very different place.
__________________
Vegetarian... primitive word for lousy hunter! |
|
April 8, 2018, 07:11 AM | #18 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Changed the thread title to accurately reflect the article.
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
April 8, 2018, 09:54 AM | #19 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
In the wake of Sandy Hook, both New York and Connecticut adopted draconian new "emergency" gun control laws that included tightening up their existing AWBs. IIRC, both states basically redefined assault weapons so that the previous two evil features limit was reduced to one evil feature. The result was that most post-ban AR-15s became "assault weapons" overnight, with the stroke of a pen.
Pro-2A organizations in both states appealed. The two cases were heard together, because they were so similar. I think this was at the district court level, not the appelate level. When the case was heard, the judge did the same thing as the judge in Massachusetts -- he ignored the fact that the AR-15 is probably rthe single most ubiquitous long gun in the United States today, and he ignored the fundamental difference between an AR-15 and the M16, and he ruled that AR-15s (and other "assault weapons" are not protected by the 2A because they are military weapons and civilians don't need them. So this ruling regarding the Massachusetts AWB is just following the same misguided footsteps that NY and CT have already been subjected to. |
April 8, 2018, 11:33 AM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 11, 2006
Posts: 481
|
The reason the Gun Owners Action League [GOAL] brought the law suit against Massachusetts is because of the attorney general Maura Healy's actions. AR-15 rifles were legal under the Massachusetts assault weapons ban if they didn't have certain features but the attorney general re-interpreted the law to mean anything that looks like an AR-15. She effectively changed the law on her own and without warning. GOAL objected to the attorney general bypassing the legislature and secrecy of her intentions.
Having lived in Massachusetts for almost 2 years now I firmly believe the present attorney general needs to be kept in check. Her actions on guns go beyond gun safety and well into the realm of prejudice and contempt for gun owners and the second amendment. I believe if she had her way the second amendment would not be legal in Massachusetts. Unfortunately Massachusetts leans way too far left and is a long way from being kept in check by the right. In her press conference after the ruling she even bragged about the gun lobby being kept in check and not allowing them to change laws when ever they and how ever they want. That is exactly what she did by decree on AR-15 rifles. Her ban on AR-15 rifles only applies to new sales of the rifle and not to anyone who owns one before her re-interpretation. However, after listening to her interviews on the subject, she considers the current owners of the rifle in violation of the law also but gave them a pass on legal action against them because they didn't know they violated the law before her new interpretation. Last edited by candr44; April 8, 2018 at 12:19 PM. |
April 8, 2018, 12:31 PM | #21 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
The CT and NY gun control laws were upheld at the appellate court level. SCOTUS turned away both cases. SCOTUS also declined the appeal of the MD "assault weapons" ban.
Quote:
|
|
April 8, 2018, 12:58 PM | #22 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,833
|
what's the old saying?? "power corrupts, and absolute power...is really neat!"
what bothers me is the unabashed double (triple? quadruple??) standard displayed. And the attitude of far too many officials, which is, essentially, "the law means what I say it means, today..." Amazing how any argument, even completely opposite arguments are just grist for the mill, as long as the end result is what they want. And the end result they want is "you can't have it". For decades we heard the argument that "we can ban X, because the 2nd Amendment only protects militia weapons (military weapons) and "X" isn't a militia weapon, and you (the public) aren't the militia, anyway..." The Heller decision shot part of that argument in the butt, but only part of it. Today we hear that "you can't have it because it is a military weapon" or "was designed as a military weapon" along with the supposed justification that we don't "need" it. So, which is it? And does it matter? It does matter, but not as much as you might think, in this case, Once again, the focus is aimed at the gun, in this case the AR and everything like it, and NOT on the bigger, underlying issue that the MA Attorney General changed the interpretation of a law, on her own authority, which the AG does not have the legal authority to do, and changed it to suit her personal whim. The biggest problem I see with the court ruling about the AR is that (from the information available to me) the court DIDN'T say the AG was wrong to do that. The court really only said that the AR (etc.) didn't meet their standard to be a protected arm, and since its not, in that judge's opinion, something protected by the Founder's intent (via the 2nd Amendment) they don't give a snit what the AG does about them, or HOW... This is not American jurisprudence at its finest, not by a long shot. One does wonder, if a public official goes outside their legal authority to change the interpretation of the written law about guns, etc.,(and, gets away with it) what ELSE are they doing and how, when it comes to the rest of things that affect our lives?? When a public official, at any level, gets to rule by personal fiat, and isn't challenged about that, they are thumbing their nose at the very principles that put them in the office they hold, in the first place. that's not the way representative republics are supposed to work. It's not even the way democracy is supposed to work. Its the way fascism works. Its good to be king (or in this case, Queen), or Fuehrer, you get what you want, and the laws only apply to the common folk... That does not, however make it right...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
April 8, 2018, 01:02 PM | #23 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Quote:
The noose is tightening. My only AR-15 is a post-ban legal model that was bought while the federal AWB was in force. With these new laws, it would not be legal for me to bring it into Connecticut, New York, Massachusetts, California (of course), and (I think) Maryland. I'm not a 3-gun competitor but, if I were, I don't think it would even be legal for me to bring it into one of those states for a weekend to shoot a match. |
|
April 8, 2018, 01:16 PM | #24 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Quote:
This reminded me that someone mentioned not too long ago that there's a similar situation in Connecticut. I don't have specifics, and it's not just my failing memory. It's a highly technical/legalistic situation, on which apparently two entities within the Connecticut state government don't even agree. It's something about pre-ban (and I don't know if this refers to pre federal AWB or pre Connecticut AWB, both of which happened at about the same time) configuration AR-15s. One side says they're legal, they were always legal, and there's no problem. The other entity just recently came along and said they are NOT legal, they were never legal, and people who possess them are in violation -- and since the registry was closed years ago, they can't even register them now if they wanted to. It doesn't affect me so I haven't followed it. The two FFLs I know from Connecticut are good guys, but both have given me incorrect information in the past regarding gun laws, so I haven't felt inclined to ask them. I just found this, which seems to indicate that it's the state police that say pre-bans are legal. But this dates to 2013, which is before the controversy erupted. I can't find anything that tells me who's on the other side, or what the counter-argument is. Last edited by Aguila Blanca; April 8, 2018 at 03:45 PM. Reason: typo |
|
April 8, 2018, 05:27 PM | #25 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 16, 2013
Posts: 280
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|