reagan appointee quotes scalia in upholding gun ban

[NotfooledbyW]

blackhawk, post: 19670417

But never mind all that lets just keep pretending that banning the AR-15 will solve everything

No one is saying it will solve everything.

But if they were banned since 1994 there's a good chance fewer would die if someone like the Parkland shooter didn't have the easy NRA path to buy one.

 

[TNHarley]

LOL what a fuckin hack
The Constitution is quite clear. It is AMAZING how much "interpretation" happens with something that has 27 fucking words...
Its pathetic.

take it up with scalia, hack

Fuck Scalia too.
How am i a hack by being able to read a document on my own? Are you fuckin retarded?

The funny thing is that you don't even realize you are interpreting it to mean what you want it to. Thats just human nature.

Lol please elaborate

 

[blackhawk]

blackhawk, post: 19670417

But never mind all that lets just keep pretending that banning the AR-15 will solve everything

No one is saying it will solve everything.

But if they were banned since 1994 there's a good chance fewer would die if someone like the Parkland shooter didn't have the easy NRA path to buy one.

Typical partisan talking points Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 people and wounded 17 others using two pistols Glock 19 and Walther P22 as far as the Parkland shooter goes it was local and federal law enforcement dropping the ball on him mulptile occasions that allowed him to get the gun not the NRA.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

blackhawk, post: 19670515

Typical partisan talking points

If you can't reply to logic call it talking points.

 

[toobfreak]

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....

Young, nominated by former President Ronald Reagan, backed his decision by quoting the late conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in a landmark 2008 decision that overturned Washington’s ban on hand guns. The ruling expanded individual gun rights but said the right isn’t unlimited.

"Weapons that are most useful in military service -- M-16 rifles and the like" aren’t protected by the Second Amendment and "may be banned," Young quoted Scalia as saying.

Young also rejected attempts by the gun-rights group to challenge the ban on the grounds that AR-15s are extremely popular in the U.S.

"The AR-15’s present day popularity is not constitutionally material," Young said. "This is because the words of our Constitution are not mutable. They mean the same today as they did 227 years ago when the Second Amendment was adopted."

The case is Worman v. Baker, 1:17-cv-10107, U.S. District Court District of Massachusetts (Boston).

Federal Judge Upholds Massachusetts’s Assault-Weapons Ban

Young, William G.

i wonder if this is the beginning of a trend?

TOTAL BULLSHIT as always, Del. The AR-15 is just a fancy looking .22 rifle. Not even within a mile of being an "assault rifle." Tell a soldier you're sending him into combat with one and see what you get. And that is failure #1 of our media and public schools, that so many dimwits like you don't even know that. If the Founders meant that such a meager weapon wasn't even covered by the 2ndA, then it wouldn't have been even worth writing it in the first place. But nice try on another desperate twist, spin and jerk of the facts.

Bottom Line: The POINT to the 2ndA was that the private citizenry of the USA have a well-armed militia fully capable of withstanding threats to the homeland, and our very existence has already stopped a Japanese invasion in WWII from even trying. All this constant gun-worry these days isn't over the occasional bad seed who takes a gun and runs off doing something stupid with it, it is the fear that THE LEFT CAN'T CARRY OUT THEIR ULTIMATE GLOBALIST PLANS with millions of well-armed, well-trained American Patriot civilians sitting around with the ability to STOP THEM. They need the "D&D;" Dumb-Down and Disarm--- --- you may be able to dumb down much of the masses, but you can't disarm the rest of us. The "other" 50 million. Go suck an egg.

blah, blah and blah

find someone who gives a fuck, short round

JUST ANOTHER WAY OF SAYING: backed into a corner without a leg to stand on, so pretends to disregard. I get you.

 

[baileyn45]

baileyn45, post: 19670365

Perhaps next he could outlaw AK 47s and Uzis, you know the guns that are already illegal and are faced by law enforcement everyday

"faced by law enforcement everyday"

You'd think that would be newsworthy.

Perhaps there is a fake news source you can tell us all about.

Yeesh, how much time do you have.

SWAT officers kill St. Louis man who fired on them with AK-47, police say
The Latest: Workplace slayings suspect had AK-47, ammunition
Virginia officer dragged several feet during traffic stop; AK-47 found in suspect’s trunk
2 killed after man armed with AK-47 goes on 'planned killing spree' throughout Metro Detroit
AK-47 Found At Scene Where Officer Shot And Killed Man, Police Say
15 guns found in home where officers executing warrant shot man, St. Louis police say
AK-47 used in Sanford shootings that left mother dead, 5 injured
Oklahoma suspect kills 2 with AK-47 after shooting & injuring 2 cops
Police seize Uzi, large collection of guns, drugs and cash in bust
St. Louis man caught with Uzi amid Florissant murder investigation, police say

Do you know any police officers? I'm friends with Cleveland PD Officers. I went to one of their public displays of confiscated weapons. The above is nothing. RPG's, grenades, they actually had a fully functional 50 cal machine gun.

People don't get it. I personally could make 2 or 3 phone calls and buy a fully automatic AK faster and cheaper than an AR. The answer to our problems is, however, more pretty words.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

as far as the Parkland shooter goes it was local and federal law enforcement dropping the ball on him mulptile occasions that allowed him to get the gun not the NRA.

Again. If it was not NRA easy for the Parkland shooter to buy and openly own an AR15, then there is much less a requirement for law enforcement to hold the ball twenty four seven.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

baileyn45, post: 19670600

I'm friends with Cleveland PD Officers.

Do they know you are a liar.

Your first link (St Louis) reads:

At a news conference Wednesday afternoon, police displayed the semi-automatic AK-47 rifle and its 30-round magazine.

Perfectly legal to purchase and stockpile? Is that correct?


Your Second link Taylor Michigan is a lie as well.

"Griffin was armed with a semi-automatic AK-47 rifle and had more than 200 rounds of ammunition with him in the stolen truck when he was wounded and arrested in Waterford Township on Thursday. He was described Monday as in critical but stable condition

Alleged spree gunman charged in Taylor slaying


Learn to read/investigate before you spam reply,

 

[Witchit]

Ignorant left tards... Automatic weapons, which are be definition assault weapons have been outlawed since 1933.

The ignorance exists only on the right.

An assault weapon is whatever a lawmaking body determines it to be, including semiautomatic AR 15s.

An assault weapon is not solely a select fire rifle or carbine chambered in an intermediate round; they are also a weapon subject to regulation as a matter of the law.

Conservatives need to stop with this tedious, inane sophistry.

We dare to dream.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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....

Young, nominated by former President Ronald Reagan, backed his decision by quoting the late conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in a landmark 2008 decision that overturned Washington’s ban on hand guns. The ruling expanded individual gun rights but said the right isn’t unlimited.

"Weapons that are most useful in military service -- M-16 rifles and the like" aren’t protected by the Second Amendment and "may be banned," Young quoted Scalia as saying.

Young also rejected attempts by the gun-rights group to challenge the ban on the grounds that AR-15s are extremely popular in the U.S.

"The AR-15’s present day popularity is not constitutionally material," Young said. "This is because the words of our Constitution are not mutable. They mean the same today as they did 227 years ago when the Second Amendment was adopted."

The case is Worman v. Baker, 1:17-cv-10107, U.S. District Court District of Massachusetts (Boston).

Federal Judge Upholds Massachusetts’s Assault-Weapons Ban

Young, William G.

i wonder if this is the beginning of a trend?

TOTAL BULLSHIT as always, Del. The AR-15 is just a fancy looking .22 rifle. Not even within a mile of being an "assault rifle." Tell a soldier you're sending him into combat with one and see what you get. And that is failure #1 of our media and public schools, that so many dimwits like you don't even know that. If the Founders meant that such a meager weapon wasn't even covered by the 2ndA, then it wouldn't have been even worth writing it in the first place. But nice try on another desperate twist, spin and jerk of the facts.

Bottom Line: The POINT to the 2ndA was that the private citizenry of the USA have a well-armed militia fully capable of withstanding threats to the homeland, and our very existence has already stopped a Japanese invasion in WWII from even trying. All this constant gun-worry these days isn't over the occasional bad seed who takes a gun and runs off doing something stupid with it, it is the fear that THE LEFT CAN'T CARRY OUT THEIR ULTIMATE GLOBALIST PLANS with millions of well-armed, well-trained American Patriot civilians sitting around with the ability to STOP THEM. They need the "D&D" for it to work; Dumb-Down and Disarm--- --- you may be able to dumb down much of the masses, but you can't disarm the rest of us. The "other" 50 million. Go suck an egg.

Here’s an example of someone who can’t discuss this topic intelligently.

 

[baileyn45]

baileyn45, post: 19670600

I'm friends with Cleveland PD Officers.

Do they know you are a liar.

Your first link (St Louis) reads:

At a news conference Wednesday afternoon, police displayed the semi-automatic AK-47 rifle and its 30-round magazine.

Perfectly legal to purchase and stockpile? Is that correct?


Your Second link Taylor Michigan is a lie as well.

"Griffin was armed with a semi-automatic AK-47 rifle and had more than 200 rounds of ammunition with him in the stolen truck when he was wounded and arrested in Waterford Township on Thursday. He was described Monday as in critical but stable condition

Alleged spree gunman charged in Taylor slaying


Learn to read/investigate before you spam reply,

Gee, good come back. I could spend the next week posting stories of people getting shot and killed with fully automatic weapons. Talk to inner-city cops some time.

My point is that if you think banning AR 15's is going to make a difference in this country, you are a fool. From your own post, "police displayed the semi-automatic AK-47 rifle and its 30-round magazine." Any idea what it takes to turn that AK fully auto? Minutes at most. Of course criminals wouldn't do that. It's a good thing it wasn't an AR 15.

Somehow, people think that banning a 30 round mag solves a problem. I can put a new mag in a 9mm in about a second. What exactly are you folks trying to ban and why? What is it that you think you're going to accomplish?

Assault weapons? For the educated they are fully auto weapons. Banned in this country since what, 1934? Sure has made a difference. And again, do you really think fully auto is rare in this country?

Same old story, pass some new laws, completely fail to enforce the current laws and pat yourself on the back,.accomplish nothing, virtue signal your friends. Meanwhile, break into my house and my children will drop you, with a legal AR 15. And no, that's not macho, white supremacy, patriarchy....... leftwing virtue signaling nonsense. Don't start no shit, won't be any.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Ignorant left tards... Automatic weapons, which are be definition assault weapons have been outlawed since 1933.

The ignorance exists only on the right.

An assault weapon is whatever a lawmaking body determines it to be, including semiautomatic AR 15s.

An assault weapon is not solely a select fire rifle or carbine chambered in an intermediate round; they are also a weapon subject to regulation as a matter of the law.

Conservatives need to stop with this tedious, inane sophistry.

And there we have it,

"An assault weapon is whatever a lawmaking body determines it to be, including semiautomatic AR 15s".

If the courts deem it, a frying pan is an assault weapon.

The AR 15 is being singled out merely for it's looks. I've watched 2 men, one with an AR 15 with a 30 round clip, another with a 9mm with 3 clips. the rate of discharge between the two is under 5 sec. Talk about not solving a problem and making idiots feel better. False sense of security.

If the ‘frying pan’ has a detachable 30 round magazine, AR fire control group, and chambers 5.56mm NATO rounds – then yes, it’s an assault weapon.

Your post is as ignorant as it is ridiculous.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Ignorant left tards... Automatic weapons, which are be definition assault weapons have been outlawed since 1933.

The ignorance exists only on the right.

An assault weapon is whatever a lawmaking body determines it to be, including semiautomatic AR 15s.

An assault weapon is not solely a select fire rifle or carbine chambered in an intermediate round; they are also a weapon subject to regulation as a matter of the law.

Conservatives need to stop with this tedious, inane sophistry.

And there we have it,

"An assault weapon is whatever a lawmaking body determines it to be, including semiautomatic AR 15s".

If the courts deem it, a frying pan is an assault weapon.

The AR 15 is being singled out merely for it's looks. I've watched 2 men, one with an AR 15 with a 30 round clip, another with a 9mm with 3 clips. the rate of discharge between the two is under 5 sec. Talk about not solving a problem and making idiots feel better. False sense of security.

states' rights, babe

don't like it?

don't live there

Ignorant left tards... Automatic weapons, which are be definition assault weapons have been outlawed since 1933.

The ignorance exists only on the right.

An assault weapon is whatever a lawmaking body determines it to be, including semiautomatic AR 15s.

An assault weapon is not solely a select fire rifle or carbine chambered in an intermediate round; they are also a weapon subject to regulation as a matter of the law.

Conservatives need to stop with this tedious, inane sophistry.

And there we have it,

"An assault weapon is whatever a lawmaking body determines it to be, including semiautomatic AR 15s".

If the courts deem it, a frying pan is an assault weapon.

The AR 15 is being singled out merely for it's looks. I've watched 2 men, one with an AR 15 with a 30 round clip, another with a 9mm with 3 clips. the rate of discharge between the two is under 5 sec. Talk about not solving a problem and making idiots feel better. False sense of security.

states' rights, babe

don't like it?

don't live there

I have no problem with states rights, I do have a problem with morons pretending to solve a problem with the most politically popular option they can find. This idiot has accomplished nothing, other than make stupid people feel better.
Perhaps next he could outlaw AK 47s and Uzis, you know the guns that are already illegal and are faced by law enforcement everyday. Pretty words, disarm the law abiding, pretend to have accomplished something. Brilliant.

This totally misses the point.

The thread is about a district court ruling that possession of an AR 15, or other similar firearms, is not entitled to Constitutional protections, consistent with Second Amendment case law.

The efficacy of the law is not at issue, nor is the motive to enact the measure.

 

[baileyn45]

Ignorant left tards... Automatic weapons, which are be definition assault weapons have been outlawed since 1933.

The ignorance exists only on the right.

An assault weapon is whatever a lawmaking body determines it to be, including semiautomatic AR 15s.

An assault weapon is not solely a select fire rifle or carbine chambered in an intermediate round; they are also a weapon subject to regulation as a matter of the law.

Conservatives need to stop with this tedious, inane sophistry.

And there we have it,

"An assault weapon is whatever a lawmaking body determines it to be, including semiautomatic AR 15s".

If the courts deem it, a frying pan is an assault weapon.

The AR 15 is being singled out merely for it's looks. I've watched 2 men, one with an AR 15 with a 30 round clip, another with a 9mm with 3 clips. the rate of discharge between the two is under 5 sec. Talk about not solving a problem and making idiots feel better. False sense of security.

If the ‘frying pan’ has a detachable 30 round magazine, AR fire control group, and chambers 5.56mm NATO rounds – then yes, it’s an assault weapon.

Your post is as ignorant as it is ridiculous.

And I will put as many rounds down range with a 9mm as your 30 round clip with the exception of 2-3 seconds to reload.
Of course you will have the advantage of accuracy. Oh wait, that advantage is mine as I will be holding my trusty AR 15 and you will be calling 911.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

baileyn45, post: 19670923,

Gee, good come back. I could spend the next week posting stories of people getting shot and killed with fully automatic weapons.

It's a lie. You said it happens every day. You can't find one news report that it happens once a year let alone every single day.

Fully automatic weapons are successfully banned and that is not an infringement on your right to bear arms.

Lying about the success of the constitutional machine gun ban won't win the argument that semi automatic weapons and high capacity magazines cannot be banned as well. They are very deadly and a menace to society. No one has the right to play with them.

Your claim that you have a constitutional right to fire off thirty rounds and reload in ten seconds but you accept that you don't have the right to fire off thirty rounds in three seconds is so bogus its laughable.

The intent of the framers taken as literal as humanly possible certainly can be interpreted in modern times that any advances in warfare technology specifically rapid fire human killing capability must be limited to use by a well regulated militia.

Sorry Mr Fib, that's what an honest and reasonable judge will decide based on exactly what is written.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

baileyn45, post: 19671115

Oh wait, that advantage is mine as I will be holding my trusty AR 15 and you will be calling 911.

So you would shoot some one armed only with a mobile phone. You don't need an AR15 for that. Use a three shot deer rifle. That should get the job done for you. If it doesn't perhaps you should take up knitting. Even if you reload, other unarmed people in the area have that split second chance to escape and survive.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Ignorant left tards... Automatic weapons, which are be definition assault weapons have been outlawed since 1933.

And that ban is not an infringement on your right to bear arms.

Tell me right wing genius: why are machine guns banned?

A) Because they are called assault rifles
B) Because they don't look like hunting rifles
C) Because liberals don't want to play with them
D) Because rapid fire and high magazine capability technology has been developed for inflicting massive casualties on humans during combat in wars. They were not designed for everyday civilian use in peace time.

If you dont know the answer or if you know it well you have no business calling anyone ignorant.

 

[2aguy]

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....

Young, nominated by former President Ronald Reagan, backed his decision by quoting the late conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in a landmark 2008 decision that overturned Washington’s ban on hand guns. The ruling expanded individual gun rights but said the right isn’t unlimited.

"Weapons that are most useful in military service -- M-16 rifles and the like" aren’t protected by the Second Amendment and "may be banned," Young quoted Scalia as saying.

Young also rejected attempts by the gun-rights group to challenge the ban on the grounds that AR-15s are extremely popular in the U.S.

"The AR-15’s present day popularity is not constitutionally material," Young said. "This is because the words of our Constitution are not mutable. They mean the same today as they did 227 years ago when the Second Amendment was adopted."

The case is Worman v. Baker, 1:17-cv-10107, U.S. District Court District of Massachusetts (Boston).

Federal Judge Upholds Massachusetts’s Assault-Weapons Ban

Young, William G.

i wonder if this is the beginning of a trend?

The judge deliberately took the opposite of What Scalia said.....Heller specifically protects weapons in Common Use...and since the AR-15 is the most common rifle in the United States..it is protected by the 2nd Amendment and by what Scalia actually wrote...these anti gun judges are lying....



this is from Heller and this is what Scalia says first...

Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

--------

In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I

Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

Then.....he supports what he wrote with this.....which the judge in this case and the 4th circuit also intentionally lied about...


P.55

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause.

But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty.

It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks.

But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

These anti gun judges are trying to wiggle an anti gun ruling out of a pro AR-15 quote......

The AR-15 rifle....and all semi automatic rifles are the most "common" rifles in this country....over 16 million semi auto rifles at one count...with over 8 million alone being AR-15 rifles......they are used for lawful purposes

And the 4th tried to use Heller to ban Stun Guns and they were bitch slapped by Justice Alito in the Caetano v. Massachusetts ruling, which affirmed and protected these rifles....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Opinion of the Court[edit]
In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.[7] Citing District of Columbia v. Heller[8] and McDonald v. City of Chicago,[9] the Court began its opinion by stating that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".[6]

The Court then identified three reasons why the Massachusetts court's opinion contradicted prior rulings by the United States Supreme Court.[1]

First, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted Heller's conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding”.[10]

Second, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns were "dangerous per se at common law and unusual" because they were "a thoroughly modern invention", but the Supreme Court held that this was also inconstant with Heller.[11]



Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]


And here they state the opposite of what the judge in this latest ruling says...

----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).


That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.

If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------

The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.

But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.

Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.


554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.
In any event, the Supreme Judicial Court’s assumption that stun guns are unsuited for militia or military use is untenable.

 

[2aguy]

LOL what a fuckin hack
The Constitution is quite clear. It is AMAZING how much "interpretation" happens with something that has 27 fucking words...
Its pathetic.

take it up with scalia, hack

No...moron....Scalia protected AR-15 rifles and semi auto rifles in the D.C. v. Heller, this judge and the judges on the 4th Circuit are deliberately lying about Heller and what Scalia said to make their rulings......

Read D.C. v. Heller and the bitch slap to the 4th Circuit Court of appeals in Caetano v. Massachusetts where they also tried to lie about what Scalia wrote....

 

[2aguy]

Judge: Assault weapons ban doesn't violate 2nd Amendment

Ahhh...so it looks like a rare victory for common sense:

"Assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are not protected by the Second Amendment, a federal judge said in a ruling Friday upholding Massachusetts' ban on the weapons.

U.S. District Judge William Young dismissed a lawsuit challenging the 20-year-old ban, saying assault weapons are military firearms that fall beyond the reach of the constitutional right to "bear arms."

Regulation of the weapons is a matter of policy, not for the courts, he said.

"Other states are equally free to leave them unregulated and available to their law-abiding citizens," Young said. "These policy matters are simply not of constitutional moment. Americans are not afraid of bumptious, raucous and robust debate about these matters. We call it democracy.""

And before we start the round of calling out 'liberal' judges...U.S. District Judge William Young --was appointed by ..Ronald Reagan.

William G. Young - Wikipedia

It isn't a victory, the judge lied since Scalia wrote in Heller, and Alito in Caetano that these weapons are covered by the 2nd Amendment...this judge lied...