Well readers Massachusetts ban on ‘Assault Weapons’ stands with U.S. District Judge William Young dismissing the lawsuit challenging the measure.
Young said assault weapons are military firearms and aren’t protected by the constitutional right to “bear arms.” Regulation of the weapons is a matter of policy, not for the courts, he said.
States can individually decided whether or not to allow the scary firearms.
Attorney General Maura Healey put out an enforcement notice in 2016 that clarified Massachusetts Assault Weapons Ban and that too was upheld by Judge Young. ‘Look-a-like’ firearms were targeted extensively.
The Gun Owners’ Action League of Massachusetts and other groups that filed the lawsuit argued that the AR-15 can’t be considered a “military weapon” because it is not select fire.
Young noted that the semi-automatic AR-15’s design is based on firearms “that were first manufactured for military purposes” and that the AR-15 is “common and well-known in the military.”
So is the Remington 700, Judge Young, it is ‘common and well-known’ as a company and battalion asset. So are the COTS Barrett M82 and M107, Commercial Off The Shelf.
“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,'” Young wrote.
Historians will note (hopefully) the AR-15, developed by ArmaLite in 1956, was a commercial offering first and was slowly picked up by the U.S. Air Force and Special Operations from those commercial offerings. The M-16, the military exclusive AR-15, wasn’t adopted until 1964.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army. Editor’s Note: Remember folks, our Founder’s were terrorists in the eyes of the British Empire.
all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.
But please, Judge Young, tell us more about how the AR-15 and similar weapons are not under the original meaning of the Second Amendment.
It requires no stretch of the imagination to infer that The Framers meant for the citizenry to keep and be proficient with small arms and supporting arms. In modern application the most basic applicable set up is a modern rifle, a sidearm, first aid kit, magazines, armor, and enough ammo and supplies to support a short term (3-Day) mission, action, or operation.
Whether a County Sheriff forms a posse, “Red Dawn” starts from the sky in some manner, or a monopoly of force should not be held by a corrupt government like in the Battle of Athens, the people of this nation have both the right and responsibility to rise to their defense and that of their communities.
Speaking earlier of the British Empire let’s check in there.
After London surpassed the New York homicide rate for February/March knives are on the chopping block.
In response to the spike in crime, Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London, deployed over 300 additional London police officers to the city’s most crime-ridden neighborhoods to stop and search anyone they suspect is carrying a knife. In the U.S., such policies are very controversial and possibly violate the Fourth Amendment, but in England, police are able to stop and search anyone they suspect is carrying a knife.
The “tough, immediate” measures also ban home deliveries of knives and acid, two of the most common weapons in London today.
“No excuses: there is never a reason to carry a knife. Anyone who does will be caught, and they will feel the full force of the law,” Khan wrote on Twitter, sharing his new policies.
Just look at that downward trend… wait a minute…