C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
āA federal judge ruled a Massachusetts ban on assault weapons is consistent with a recent landmark Supreme Court decision that established firearms regulations must be consistent with the nationās āhistorical tradition.ā
āThe relevant history affirms the principle that in 1791, as now, there was a tradition of regulating ādangerous and unusualā weapons ā specifically, those that are not reasonably necessary for self-defense,ā U.S. District Chief Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV wrote in an order Thursday.
The assault weapons prohibited by the Massachusetts ban are ānot suitable for ordinary self-defense purposes, and pose substantial dangers far beyond those inherent in the design of ordinary firearms,ā the judge wrote. The Massachusetts law prohibits some semiautomatic weapons and large-capacity magazines. It was passed in 1998 and was made permanent after a similar federal statute expired in 2004, according to the judgeās order.ā
āā¦not suitable for ordinary self-defense purposesā¦ā
True.
And the decision recognizes Bruen and is consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.
For those who disagree with the ruling, Judge Saylor isnāt the villain ā that would be Thomas and his āhistorical traditionā test; a ātestā thatās flawed, ham-handed, and poorly reasoned.
āThe relevant history affirms the principle that in 1791, as now, there was a tradition of regulating ādangerous and unusualā weapons ā specifically, those that are not reasonably necessary for self-defense,ā U.S. District Chief Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV wrote in an order Thursday.
The assault weapons prohibited by the Massachusetts ban are ānot suitable for ordinary self-defense purposes, and pose substantial dangers far beyond those inherent in the design of ordinary firearms,ā the judge wrote. The Massachusetts law prohibits some semiautomatic weapons and large-capacity magazines. It was passed in 1998 and was made permanent after a similar federal statute expired in 2004, according to the judgeās order.ā
āā¦not suitable for ordinary self-defense purposesā¦ā
True.
And the decision recognizes Bruen and is consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.
For those who disagree with the ruling, Judge Saylor isnāt the villain ā that would be Thomas and his āhistorical traditionā test; a ātestā thatās flawed, ham-handed, and poorly reasoned.