Massachusetts Ban on Most Self‐​Defense Firearms Violates Second Amendment

[Elderberry]

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

[thackney]

Only a handgun is suitable for home defense?  Somebody tell Old Joe Biden.

Modern version:

[Jazzhead]

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?       

[Smokin Joe]

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.

[roamer_1]

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.

[Jazzhead]

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. 

[roamer_1]

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.

[txradioguy]

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.

[txradioguy]

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?

[txradioguy]

Back to the original subject...if this goes to SCOTUS...Massachussetts will lose.

[verga]

BKMK

[Smokin Joe]

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.

[Smokin Joe]

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.

[verga]

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.

[Jazzhead]

Time to pull your head out of your rectal cavity.

Why thanks for elevating the level of discussion.   

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.   

 

[Smokin Joe]

Why thanks for elevating the level of discussion.   

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.

[Jazzhead]

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.   

[txradioguy]

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.

[thackney]

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.

[Jazzhead]

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.   

[Jazzhead]

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?   

[libertybele]

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???

[Jazzhead]

??? 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. 

[thackney]

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.

[txradioguy]

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.

[txradioguy]

Ok this has gone far enough.


@Jazzhead as the moderator of the 2A category...I'm going to remind you...only once...to get back on the original topic.

Your continuous hijacking of 2A threads to abortion or whatever you want to talk about instead of the OP is walking the very fine line of what TBR considers trolling.

Talk about the OP or move along.

[Jazzhead]

Okay,  so it's shut me up,  I guess.   I understand - talk of hypocrisy makes you uncomfortable. 

I will, as ordered, move along.   

[txradioguy]

Okay,  so it's shut me up,  I guess.   I understand - talk of hypocrisy makes you uncomfortable. 

I will, as ordered, move along.

No you obtuse jackass.  This has nothing to do with hypocrisy...it's about thread jacking and trolling on your part.  No one here is trying to shut you up...it's about staying on topic.  Trust me if it was about shutting you up...that could have been done a long long time ago.

If you want to argue abortion post an article/op in the proper sections and lets get the debate on.

But this is the Second Amendment category...not the Roe v Wade Category.

Stop trying to turn yourself into a victim of something you started/caused.

[Cyber Liberty]

Okay,  so it's shut me up,  I guess.   I understand - talk of hypocrisy makes you uncomfortable. 

I will, as ordered, move along.

@Jazzhead  TRG has no personal issues with being "uncomfortable," he's stating our TBR Policy as I have done so before.  Take your warning from @txradioguy, he's our Moderator.

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead  TRG has no personal issues with being "uncomfortable," he's stating our TBR Policy as I have done so before.  Take your warning from @txradioguy, he's our Moderator.

As instructed, I am moving along. 

[PeteS in CA]

No you obtuse jackass.  This has nothing to do with hypocrisy...it's about thread jacking and trolling on your part.  No one here is trying to shut you up...it's about staying on topic.  Trust me if it was about shutting you up...that could have been done a long long time ago.
...
Stop trying to turn yourself into a victim of something you started/caused.

@txradioguy & @Cyber Liberty, Jazz has been a Moderator elsewhere. He understands why threadjacking is uncool.

[LegalAmerican]

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

People don't know, (*not talking about you*) that this is the start of communism in our country?  No one is taught what happens in those kind of countries?  Many deaths. k!lling fields.  Government has all the control. The citizen has NONE.  Little by little.  SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

[txradioguy]

@txradioguy & @Cyber Liberty, Jazz has been a Moderator elsewhere. He understands why threadjacking is uncool.

Oh really?   

[sneakypete]

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.

@Jazzhead

I hate it when I have to agree with you.

[verga]

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?

Hey here is an idea, don't engage in sex until you are either married or ready to have children. If you need to be a round heels get your tubes tied or date men that can prove they are sterile or have had vasectomies.

[Smokin Joe]

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.

The choice of whether or not to reproduce has already been made. That Liberty has been exercised.
As an afterthought, the elimination of the life that has been created, is not Liberty but murder, murder which denies the fundamental right to live that now growing child has.
Nowhere else in American jurisprudence is the argument made that one person's "rights" extend to taking the life of another who does not directly threaten their physical well being.

Now the standard for having rights is "viability"?

You couldn't have survived on your own until you were well into the single digits, and even then your odds of survival on your own were extremely small.

Let's say, five years old? Seven? Ten? Twenty one? Thirty Five? Capable of climbing out of grandma's basement and getting a job?

How old is viable by your standards?
A live born baby won't survive on its own. Incapable of locomotion, feeding and watering itself, it is doomed without adequate care.
So, too are toddlers, who while mobile, still lack the ability to feed themselves, provide shelter, and hydration that won't kill them.
The list goes on, and to it we could add anyone who has a physical disability or other condition that renders them incapable of getting and consuming food, providing shelter, and adequate drinking water. Drop them off in the boonies, and half the people in the country aren't "viable". It's a goalpost that can be moved anywhere on the field, and even off it.

Sound like the list used by eugenicists (modeled by the Nazis) to eliminate 'useless eaters' yet?

Don't swing that turd around like a magic wand, we all know it for what it is.

The citizen being deprived of their Liberty is the one who inevitably dies every time a "successful procedure" occurs--the ONLY medical procedure commonly deemed "successful" by the death of a human being, outside of the execution of criminals.

[Jazzhead]

The choice of whether or not to reproduce has already been made. That Liberty has been exercised.
As an afterthought, the elimination of the life that has been created, is not Liberty but murder, murder which denies the fundamental right to live that now growing child has.
Nowhere else in American jurisprudence is the argument made that one person's "rights" extend to taking the life of another who does not directly threaten their physical well being.

Now the standard for having rights is "viability"?

You couldn't have survived on your own until you were well into the single digits, and even then your odds of survival on your own were extremely small.

Let's say, five years old? Seven? Ten? Twenty one? Thirty Five? Capable of climbing out of grandma's basement and getting a job?

How old is viable by your standards?
A live born baby won't survive on its own. Incapable of locomotion, feeding and watering itself, it is doomed without adequate care.
So, too are toddlers, who while mobile, still lack the ability to feed themselves, provide shelter, and hydration that won't kill them.
The list goes on, and to it we could add anyone who has a physical disability or other condition that renders them incapable of getting and consuming food, providing shelter, and adequate drinking water. Drop them off in the boonies, and half the people in the country aren't "viable". It's a goalpost that can be moved anywhere on the field, and even off it.

Sound like the list used by eugenicists (modeled by the Nazis) to eliminate 'useless eaters' yet?

Don't swing that turd around like a magic wand, we all know it for what it is.

The citizen being deprived of their Liberty is the one who inevitably dies every time a "successful procedure" occurs--the ONLY medical procedure commonly deemed "successful" by the death of a human being, outside of the execution of criminals.

Your points deserve a serious and empathic response,  @Smokin Joe,  but I have been instructed by the moderator of this forum not to respond.   My apologies.   

[verga]

Your points deserve a serious and empathic response,  @Smokin Joe,  but I have been instructed by the moderator of this forum not to respond.   My apologies.

Start a different thread, doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

[txradioguy]

Your points deserve a serious and empathic response,  @Smokin Joe,  but I have been instructed by the moderator of this forum not to respond.   My apologies.

 

[Smokin Joe]

My apologies, @txradioguy and all for playing into the hijack. I'm equally guilty, regardless of the validity of my points. IIRC, Massachusetts has been hostile to firearms in the hands of civilians, at least in more modern times.

It puzzles me that a State (okay, Commonwealth), which prides itself on being a 'Cradle of Liberty', and where the opening battles of the Revolutionary War were fought to prevent the confiscation of arms, is so hostile to the concept of the citizenry remaining armed today. Unfortunately, that is a measure of how far parts of this country have drifted from founding concepts.

In a way, the other distortion of what is considered "Liberty" is just a symptom of that drift from principle.

Lest we forget, Romney, who also signed off on Romneycare (model for the ACA) signed the Assault Weapons Ban in Massachusetts as Governor. THat guy has done more damage than most, and continues to be waved about as some sort of "conservative".

[txradioguy]

My apologies, @txradioguy and all for playing into the hijack. I'm equally guilty, regardless of the validity of my points.

No worries.  Not you fault.

IIRC, Massachusetts has been hostile to firearms in the hands of civilians, at least in more modern times.

I'm surprised that the gun manufacturers stay there given the hostility of the Commonwealth towards the 2nd Amendment.

It puzzles me that a State (okay, Commonwealth), which prides itself on being a 'Cradle of Liberty', and where the opening battles of the Revolutionary War were fought to prevent the confiscation of arms, is so hostile to the concept of the citizenry remaining armed today. Unfortunately, that is a measure of how far parts of this country have drifted from founding concepts.

It's really sad to see how far away from their roots they've turned.  Socialism has rotted the entire state...and the Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves at what Massachusetts has become.

You look at the most Liberal/Progressive states on the East Coast...IIRC almost all of them demanded that the 2nd AMendment be included in the Bill of Rights or they weren't going to vote to ratify the Constitution.

Now those same states are the ones that wipe their shoes on the Second Amendment.

In a way, the other distortion of what is considered "Liberty" is just a symptom of that drift from principle.

I'll never understand how womb to tomb control of ones entire life could ever be considered freedom.

Lest we forget, Romney, who also signed off on Romneycare (model for the ACA) signed the Assault Weapons Ban in Massachusetts as Governor. THat guy has done more damage than most, and continues to be waved about as some sort of "conservative".

Indeed he has and...God forbid...if another AWB comes before the Senate for a vote I wouldn't put it past him to vote for it.

[Smokin Joe]

Indeed he has and...God forbid...if another AWB comes before the Senate for a vote I wouldn't put it past him to vote for it.

I fully believe, at this point, another AWB can expect about as much compliance as the bump stock ban, despite any records of who bought what.