Author Topic: Massachusetts Ban on Most Self‐​Defense Firearms Violates Second Amendment  (Read 718 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Elderberry

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,030
Cato Institute By Ilya Shapiro and James Knight 10/28/2019

Massachusetts law currently prohibits ownership of “assault weapons,” the statutory definition of which includes the most popular semi-automatic rifles in the country, as well as “copies or duplicates” of any such weapons. As for what that means, your guess is as good as ours. A group of plaintiffs, including two firearm dealers and the Gun Owners’ Action League, challenged the law as an unconstitutional violation of their Second Amendment rights. Unfortunately, both a federal trial judge and appellate court upheld the ban—though they could not agree on why.

The trial judge followed the lead of the Maryland case of Kolbe v. Hogan (in which Cato filed a brief supporting a petition to the Supreme Court), misconstruing from a shred of the landmark 2008 Supreme Court opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller that the test for whether a class of weapons could be banned was whether it was “like an M-16.” Meanwhile, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (in which Cato also filed a brief), conjured up a complex interest-balancing test that boiled down to a much simpler question: is it like a handgun? If not, the weapon is not sufficiently “well-suited” to self-defense in the home and can be banned. Both tests contravene the core holding of Heller that all weapons in common civilian use are constitutionally protected.

The plaintiffs are now asking the Supreme Court to hear their case. Cato, joined by several organizations interested in the protection of our civil liberties, has filed an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs’ petition. We discuss how the federal circuit courts have, absent further guidance from the Supreme Court, stumbled around in the dark in their attempts to apply Heller’s “common use” test.

More: https://www.cato.org/blog/massachusetts-ban-most-self-defense-firearms-violates-second-amendment

Offline thackney

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,156
  • Gender: Male
Only a handgun is suitable for home defense?  Somebody tell Old Joe Biden.

Modern version:

Life is fragile, handle with prayer

Offline Jazzhead

  • Mark Sanford for President
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,572
  • Gender: Male
This shows the difficulty with court-supplied rights.   The courts have been wrestling for years with what constitutes reasonable regulation of the abortion right.   Same here with the individual self-defense right found by Heller.

Not sure there's much principled difference between a conservative arguing that abortion be banned after six weeks and a liberal arguing that a homeowner can't defend his home with anything larger than a handgun.   It's all just the same old story of rights for me but not for thee.

How about advocating for liberty in both cases?   Is there anyone here with their principles intact who will do so?       
"He was born poor, died rich, and never hurt anyone along the way"

   - Duke Ellington, upon hearing of the death of Louis Armstrong

"Not forever.  Just for now"

    - Jay Farrar

Online Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27,853
This shows the difficulty with court-supplied rights.   The courts have been wrestling for years with what constitutes reasonable regulation of the abortion right.   Same here with the individual self-defense right found by Heller.

Not sure there's much principled difference between a conservative arguing that abortion be banned after six weeks and a liberal arguing that a homeowner can't defend his home with anything larger than a handgun.   It's all just the same old story of rights for me but not for thee.

How about advocating for liberty in both cases?   Is there anyone here with their principles intact who will do so?     
Interesting that somehow you would say "Liberty" is defending innocent life (with a firearm) on the one hand, and taking it (via abortion) on the other.
Sorry, but the two cannot be equated in principle.
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression


There are no "Socialists", no "Progressives", only Communists, with every negative image that totalitarianism might muster, demanding fealty and conformity to their views, with a legacy of 150,000,000 dead and counting.

Offline roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 20,378
Interesting that somehow you would say "Liberty" is defending innocent life (with a firearm) on the one hand, and taking it (via abortion) on the other.
Sorry, but the two cannot be equated in principle.

That is absolute truth.

Offline Jazzhead

  • Mark Sanford for President
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,572
  • Gender: Male
Interesting that somehow you would say "Liberty" is defending innocent life (with a firearm) on the one hand, and taking it (via abortion) on the other.
Sorry, but the two cannot be equated in principle.

Liberty is liberty.   I understand your moral objection to abortion but the issue is whether the government has the right to impose that moral view on a woman.   Her liberty to choose when to reproduce is as precious to her as your liberty to defend your home and family with a firearm is to you.   

I do not discount your moral view.  I happen to share it.  Where we differ is I am willing to advocate for my view,  but not to engage the state to deprive my neighbor of her liberty. 
"He was born poor, died rich, and never hurt anyone along the way"

   - Duke Ellington, upon hearing of the death of Louis Armstrong

"Not forever.  Just for now"

    - Jay Farrar

Offline roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 20,378
Liberty is liberty.   I understand your moral objection to abortion but the issue is whether the government has the right to impose that moral view on a woman.   Her liberty to choose when to reproduce is as precious to her as your liberty to defend your home and family with a firearm is to you.   

I do not discount your moral view.  I happen to share it.  Where we differ is I am willing to advocate for my view,  but not to engage the state to deprive my neighbor of her liberty.

Liberty has responsibilities.
Freedom has consequences.

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,459
  • Gender: Male
  • Rule #39
Quote
Same here with the individual self-defense right found by Heller.

How can you be continually this obtuse on what the Heller decision said?  It's like if you repeat the lie often enough it will become the truth.

Not gonna work here.
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,459
  • Gender: Male
  • Rule #39
I happen to share it.  Where we differ is I am willing to advocate for my view,  but not to engage the state to deprive my neighbor of her liberty.

And what about the Liberty of the living person she's carrying inside of her?

The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,459
  • Gender: Male
  • Rule #39
Back to the original subject...if this goes to SCOTUS...Massachussetts will lose.
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Offline verga

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,883
  • Gender: Male
BKMK
In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
�More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.�-Woody Allen
If God invented marathons to keep people from doing anything more stupid, the triathlon must have taken him completely by surprise.

Online Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27,853
Liberty is liberty.   I understand your moral objection to abortion but the issue is whether the government has the right to impose that moral view on a woman.   Her liberty to choose when to reproduce is as precious to her as your liberty to defend your home and family with a firearm is to you.   

I do not discount your moral view.  I happen to share it.  Where we differ is I am willing to advocate for my view,  but not to engage the state to deprive my neighbor of her liberty.
Let me put it this way. I am against the murder of innocents, no matter what wrapper is put on that box.

So, too, is our general opinion in our society as a whole.

Why is the unmitigated slaughter of tens of millions of innocent babies an exception?
Because they are inconvenient? Would that give someone the 'right' to eliminate anyone they found inconvenient? That person moving slowly in the hallway who is infringing on the right to move as quickly as you please?
The person driving ten MPH below the speed limit, hogging the road and blocking traffic?
There is a lot of inconvenience in the world, and at some point, all of us will be an inconvenience to others--it cannot be avoided. Does that give them the right to kill us because we're interfering with their Liberty?

No. What your argument conveniently ignores is that our rights only go so far, that limit being when they start interfering with the Rights of others. Among those self-evident and unalienable Rights, in fact, foremost, is the Right to Life.

I find no inconsistency in my views to preserve the lives of innocents, yet I find inconsistency in views which assert that there is a right to preserve Life on one hand, and take it on another, when in both instances the lives are innocent of any wrongdoing.
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression


There are no "Socialists", no "Progressives", only Communists, with every negative image that totalitarianism might muster, demanding fealty and conformity to their views, with a legacy of 150,000,000 dead and counting.

Online Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27,853
How can you be continually this obtuse on what the Heller decision said?  It's like if you repeat the lie often enough it will become the truth.

Not gonna work here.
Heller didn't grant a Right, Heller limited Government under the Second Amendment, which is what the Second Amendment exists to do--limit the power of Government to interfere with the right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms.
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression


There are no "Socialists", no "Progressives", only Communists, with every negative image that totalitarianism might muster, demanding fealty and conformity to their views, with a legacy of 150,000,000 dead and counting.

Offline verga

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,883
  • Gender: Male
Liberty is liberty.   I understand your moral objection to abortion but the issue is whether the government has the right to impose that moral view on a woman.   Her liberty to choose when to reproduce is as precious to her as your liberty to defend your home and family with a firearm is to you.   

I do not discount your moral view.  I happen to share it.  Where we differ is I am willing to advocate for my view,  but not to engage the state to deprive my neighbor of her liberty.
Ever hear of a little thing called "The law of unintended consequences"?
In the social sciences, unintended consequences (sometimes unanticipated consequences or unforeseen consequences) are outcomes that are not the ones foreseen and intended by a purposeful action. The term was popularised in the twentieth century by American sociologist Robert K. Merton.
Unexpected benefit: A positive unexpected benefit (also referred to as luck, serendipity or a windfall).
Unexpected drawback: An unexpected detriment occurring in addition to the desired effect of the policy (e.g., while irrigation schemes provide people with water for agriculture, they can increase waterborne diseases that have devastating health effects, such as schistosomiasis).
Perverse result: A perverse effect contrary to what was originally intended (when an intended solution makes a problem worse). This is sometimes referred to as 'backfire'...
In 1929 the Lambeth conference of the Anglican Church permitted artificial contraception. Illegitimate births skyrocketed.
In 1973 Roe V. Wade Permitted abortion in the US. Abortions and illegitimate pregnancies skyrocketed. Human life begins at conception. Tat is not a matter of religious faith that is a matter of science.
There are a number of countries that have legalized Euthanasia and assisted suicide. Jack Kevorkian has been working to make it legal here.
Sooner or later abortion and Euthanasia will no longer be optional but mandatory.
Time to pull your head out of your rectal cavity.
In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
�More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.�-Woody Allen
If God invented marathons to keep people from doing anything more stupid, the triathlon must have taken him completely by surprise.

Offline Jazzhead

  • Mark Sanford for President
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,572
  • Gender: Male
Time to pull your head out of your rectal cavity.

Why thanks for elevating the level of discussion.   999yawn

Yes, liberty is liberty.   My point remains that a woman's liberty and a gun-owner's liberty are each deserving of protection from the tyranny of government. 

Does life begin at conception?   Well, yes I believe it does.   But that's not the point -  before a fetus is viable,  when it is wholly part of, and dependent on,  the body of the mother for survival, who should exercise dominion over it?    I say the woman,  you say the government, and that is where we differ.    Think of it this way -  you are properly outraged when liberals demand that the government exercise dominion over your own home,  by barring your effective means of defending it.  So why cannot you understand and shield a woman's right to dominion over her own life decisions from the arbitrary hand of government? 

That doesn't mean you don't have the right to advocate for your moral view of a woman's responsibility toward the potential life growing inside her body.   But ultimately,  the decision-maker can only be the woman.   You can only persuade, you cannot coerce.  And neither can the government.   

 

"He was born poor, died rich, and never hurt anyone along the way"

   - Duke Ellington, upon hearing of the death of Louis Armstrong

"Not forever.  Just for now"

    - Jay Farrar

Online Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27,853
Why thanks for elevating the level of discussion.   999yawn

Yes, liberty is liberty.   My point remains that a woman's liberty and a gun-owner's liberty are each deserving of protection from the tyranny of government. 

Does life begin at conception?   Well, yes I believe it does.   But that's not the point -  before a fetus is viable,  when it is wholly part of, and dependent on,  the body of the mother for survival, who should exercise dominion over it?    I say the woman,  you say the government, and that is where we differ.    Think of it this way -  you are properly outraged when liberals demand that the government exercise dominion over your own home,  by barring your effective means of defending it.  So why cannot you understand and shield a woman's right to dominion over her own life decisions from the arbitrary hand of government? 

That doesn't mean you don't have the right to advocate for your moral view of a woman's responsibility toward the potential life growing inside her body.   But ultimately,  the decision-maker can only be the woman.   You can only persuade, you cannot coerce.  And neither can the government.
It isn't a potential life, it is a life, a genetically unique human being.
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression


There are no "Socialists", no "Progressives", only Communists, with every negative image that totalitarianism might muster, demanding fealty and conformity to their views, with a legacy of 150,000,000 dead and counting.

Offline Jazzhead

  • Mark Sanford for President
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,572
  • Gender: Male
It isn't a potential life, it is a life, a genetically unique human being.

It is only a potential life until such time as it can survive on its own.  Prior to viability,  its potentiality is choate only because of the functioning of the woman's body.   It is her liberty, her servitude, at issue here.   

Your moral view (which I share) affords no basis for depriving a citizen of her liberty.  It's still the woman's call, not the government's (at least until viability is attained). 

 Persuade,  don't coerce.   
« Last Edit: October 30, 2019, 10:07:01 AM by Jazzhead »
"He was born poor, died rich, and never hurt anyone along the way"

   - Duke Ellington, upon hearing of the death of Louis Armstrong

"Not forever.  Just for now"

    - Jay Farrar

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,459
  • Gender: Male
  • Rule #39
It is only a potential life until such time as it can survive on its own.  Prior to viability,  its potentiality is choate only because of the functioning of the woman's body.   It is her liberty, her servitude, at issue here.   

Your moral view (which I share) affords no basis for depriving a citizen of her liberty.  It's still the woman's call, not the government's (at least until viability is attained). 

 Persuade,  don't coerce.

I’m not sure whether to be amazed or disgusted by the lengths you will go to in order to justify the murder of an innocent baby...a human life.
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Offline thackney

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,156
  • Gender: Male
I’m not sure whether to be amazed or disgusted by the lengths you will go to in order to justify the murder of an innocent baby...a human life.

And to hijack many gun topics with this false comparison.
Life is fragile, handle with prayer

Offline Jazzhead

  • Mark Sanford for President
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,572
  • Gender: Male
I’m not sure whether to be amazed or disgusted by the lengths you will go to in order to justify the murder of an innocent baby...a human life.

Why are you so afraid that persuasion won't work?   It is just so strange to me to see conservatives demanding that the government force citizens to reproduce.   
"He was born poor, died rich, and never hurt anyone along the way"

   - Duke Ellington, upon hearing of the death of Louis Armstrong

"Not forever.  Just for now"

    - Jay Farrar

Offline Jazzhead

  • Mark Sanford for President
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,572
  • Gender: Male
And to hijack many gun topics with this false comparison.

Hijack?  Okay, guilty.

False comparison?  Absolutely not.  I am sick and tired of the hypocrisy of "rights for me but not for thee", whether practiced by liberals or conservatives.

Liberty is liberty.  Why should I defend your liberty if you won't defend my daughter's?   
"He was born poor, died rich, and never hurt anyone along the way"

   - Duke Ellington, upon hearing of the death of Louis Armstrong

"Not forever.  Just for now"

    - Jay Farrar

Offline libertybele

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 22,024
  • Gender: Female
Liberty is liberty.   I understand your moral objection to abortion but the issue is whether the government has the right to impose that moral view on a woman.   Her liberty to choose when to reproduce is as precious to her as your liberty to defend your home and family with a firearm is to you.   

I do not discount your moral view.  I happen to share it.  Where we differ is I am willing to advocate for my view,  but not to engage the state to deprive my neighbor of her liberty.

??? Liberty is liberty?  Liberty is murdering a child which is legal, but defending a child with a particular type of weapon is not??  What the heck is wrong with this picture???
"The only force standing between the United States remaining the country with more freedom, opportunity and prosperity than any place on the planet and the nation becoming a communist, open border shit hole IS President Donald Trump."
     --- Tom Tancredo

Offline Jazzhead

  • Mark Sanford for President
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,572
  • Gender: Male
??? Liberty is liberty?  Liberty is murdering a child which is legal, but defending a child with a particular type of weapon is not??  What the heck is wrong with this picture???

Liberty is most insidiously threatened when its exercise is labelled with emotional rhetoric like "murdering a child".    It's the same approach used by the left to take away your gun rights. 

Why not just defend liberty, period?   Left and right will forever be seen as hypocritical in their attitudes toward the liberties they arbitrarily favor or disfavor. 
"He was born poor, died rich, and never hurt anyone along the way"

   - Duke Ellington, upon hearing of the death of Louis Armstrong

"Not forever.  Just for now"

    - Jay Farrar

Offline thackney

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,156
  • Gender: Male
Hijack?  Okay, guilty.

False comparison?  Absolutely not.  I am sick and tired of the hypocrisy of "rights for me but not for thee", whether practiced by liberals or conservatives.

Liberty is liberty.  Why should I defend your liberty if you won't defend my daughter's?

I am sick and tired of the hypocrisy that there is no right to life for an innocent child while inconveniencing a woman who made bad choices and expects no consequences.
Life is fragile, handle with prayer

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,459
  • Gender: Male
  • Rule #39
And to hijack many gun topics with this false comparison.

@thackney ...it's a typical move by the Liberals...hijack an original topic and divert it to what they want to talk about instead.
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf