Second Amendment Does Not Apply to 'Assault Weapons,' Says U.S. District Judge

[rangerrebew]

Second Amendment Does Not Apply to 'Assault Weapons,' Says U.S. District Judge

His obsession with Justice Scalia's aside in Heller about "weapons...most useful in military service" ignores Scalia writing of weapons "typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes."

Brian Doherty|Apr. 6, 2018 9:20 pm

Relying on certain stated or implied limitations on the weapons to which the Second Amendment applied in Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion in D.C. v. Heller (2008), U.S. District Court Judge William G. Young this week granted summary judgment to Massachusetts in a lawsuit challenging a 1998 state law that emulated the federal government's 1994 ban on certain weapons it characterized as "assault weapons." The federal ban expired in 2004 but the Massachusetts version remained in effect.
 

In their original complaint, plaintiffs David Worman et al argued that a 1998 Massachusetts state law that banned certain types of semi-automatic rifles and certain sized magazines violated their Second Amendment rights (and that a later attempt to apply the ban to other weapons not specifically listed originally but now considered to be illegitimate "copies or duplicates" constituted a 14th Amendment violation of due process)

https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/06/us-district-judge-in-massachusetts-belie

[txradioguy]

I see this decision being overturned on appeal.

[INVAR]

They can say and rule whatever they like.

I will not comply with whatever it is they say, and ignore them.

[Fishrrman]

Invar wrote:
"They can say and rule whatever they like.
I will not comply with whatever it is they say, and ignore them."

Yeah.
Sure you will.

I posted that to get your hackles up.
But I'm on your side.

Nevertheless...
I've posted a link to this before, now I'll post the image itself.
Folks, this day IS coming.
Not sure just when it will happen, yet.
But make no mistake -- someday it IS going to "happen":



You may not like the guy who wrote this.
I'm sure you probably don't.
But he was prescient. Who said it first?

[INVAR]

Invar wrote:
"They can say and rule whatever they like.
I will not comply with whatever it is they say, and ignore them."

Yeah.
Sure you will.

I've already done so when a suburb up in Chicago did a similar thing that Deerfield, IL has just done.  I did not comply then, I will not be complying now or in the future.

I look at these registration and gun bans as if I were a Jew in 30's Germany.  If this government is intent on disarming me, I am convinced that it will be for the purpose of my subjugation and eradication.

That is engrained in my mindset.  If they demand registration and insurance - it is for the purpose of confiscation and disarmament.

To leave us helpless so they can do what they want to do to us, without any risk to themselves and their agents.

[LauraTXNM]

Invar wrote:
"They can say and rule whatever they like.
I will not comply with whatever it is they say, and ignore them."

Yeah.
Sure you will.

I posted that to get your hackles up.
But I'm on your side.

Nevertheless...
I've posted a link to this before, now I'll post the image itself.
Folks, this day IS coming.
Not sure just when it will happen, yet.
But make no mistake -- someday it IS going to "happen":



You may not like the guy who wrote this.
I'm sure you probably don't.
But he was prescient. Who said it first?

@Fishrrman  You've referred to the _Turner Diaries_ before.  There are other books warning about weapons confiscation; what is your particular attraction to this novel?  Do you agree with Pierce's views about race? 

[mrclose]

The vast majority of people who believe that the government has the right to regulate gun ownership by passing new laws ... have a poor understanding of our Constitution!

Most of the arguments about the Second Amendment ... made by both sides, revolve around a single assumption - that the Second Amendment grants a citizen the right to bear arms.

What both sides fail to understand is that the Second Amendment grants no such right, in fact, the Constitution grants no rights at all!

What the Constitution does do is identify what powers the people grant to the government.

This is the whole purpose of the Constitution - to tell the government what it can and cannot do, our Constitution is a limit on government.

That is why Marxists, Socialist, Progressive Democrats, et al. have such a disdain for our Constitution .. it is a limitation on Government not a limitation on We The People.

Read the Second Amendment closely.
Nowhere does it state that the people have a right to bear arms but rather that the government cannot infringe on that right.

The framers of our Constitution believed that our right to bear arms is a natural right , not a right to be given to us by government.


Amendment II

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.

That’s it, that is the whole 2nd Amendment.
Where does it say that the government gives us any right?
It doesn’t, it only says that the government cannot infringe on this right.

And when the often used argument arises that we will all be safer if we pass (another) gun law .. I am reminded on how one of our Founding Fathers would respond to that ..

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery".

Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

Put another way: I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude..

Today, when a concerted effort is made to obliterate this point, it cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals- that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government- that it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen’s protection against the government.— Ayn Rand

And as to the nonsense about automatic (military style) weapons not being around at the time our Constitution was drawn up ...  https://mrclose.neocities.org/

[goatprairie]

The judge is most assuredly a complete idiot. Let him define what an "assault rifle" is.  He can't.  If he means semi-automatic weapons, then there are many millions of those types of weapons including handguns.  I have a semi-automatic Ruger 10-22.  Is that an "assault rifle" ?  I don't think the U.S. army will be using a Ruger 10-22 or handguns anytime soon for assaulting  terrorists.
The judge is obviously no expert on firearms but thinks he can define what constitutes an assault weapon. This has to be overturned. And hopefully the judge removed from the bench for his totally unconstitutional and outrageous decision.

[INVAR]

And when the often used argument arises that we will all be safer if we pass (another) gun law .. I am reminded on how one of our Founding Fathers would respond to that ..

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery".- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

Put another way:I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude..

Human nature prefers slavery and quiet servitude than the risk of dangerous freedom.  Ancient Israel was grumbling and wanting to go back into slavery in Egypt a mere 3 days after crossing the Red Sea.  Mankind are disposed to suffer evils, while evil is sufferable than right themselves and abolish the forms to which they are become accustomed.

Certainly we have learned that half the population and likely most of your neighbors do not trust you or I with liberty.

They entrust it government instead.

[Hoodat]

Second Amendment Does Not Apply to 'Assault Weapons,' Says U.S. District Judge

And the First Amendment doesn't apply to automated printing presses that generate 1,000 newspapers per minute.  And the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to electronic searches.  And the Third Amendment doesn't apply for people who rent apartments.

I am so sick and tired of government officials in all three branches for showing contempt for a Constitution they took an oath to uphold and defend.

[Hoodat]

I've already done so when a suburb up in Chicago did a similar thing that Deerfield, IL has just done.  I did not comply then, I will not be complying now or in the future.

I look at these registration and gun bans as if I were a Jew in 30's Germany.  If this government is intent on disarming me, I am convinced that it will be for the purpose of my subjugation and eradication.

Why should any government expect me to obey a law while they openly violate the Constitution?

[driftdiver]

Why should any government expect me to obey a law while they openly violate the Constitution?

Because they are working to subvert the Constitution and care more about their agenda.

[Frank Cannon]

Judge Not Young was a Reagan appointee.