Fed Judge in Massachusetts upholds AWB

[quackersmacker]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/judge-assault-weapons-ban-doesnt-violate-2nd-amendment/ar-AAvyIYD?li=BBnbcA1

[spec4]

Gotta love that "weapons of war" nonsense. Amazing, really, that this guy is a federal judge. Hope it goes higher, Massachusetts needs a good kick in the but from the SCOTUS.

[THE KING]

Yep, a federal judge that has no clue what the Constitution actually means. Guess he just makes up his own interpretation as he goes along.

[quackersmacker]

That Mass AG sure sounds like a genius. "Strong gun laws save lives." As in ----- Chicago.

[cybermgk]

Appear the judge dismissed the case, didn't even hear it. They NEED to appeal this. AND SCOTUS GET OFF YOUR ARSE AND HEAR ONE OF THESE CASES.

[ScottFM]

Appear the judge dismissed the case, didn't even hear it. They NEED to appeal this. AND SCOTUS GET OFF YOUR ARSE AND HEAR ONE OF THESE CASES.

The MA court ruling is in line with what Scalia wrote in the SCOTUS Heller v DC decision. I've said for years that he opinion would come back to haunt gun rights advocates and today I was proved right.

[357]

 

Appear the judge dismissed the case, didn't even hear it. They NEED to appeal this. AND SCOTUS GET OFF YOUR ARSE AND HEAR ONE OF THESE CASES.

 

The MA court ruling is in line with what Scalia wrote in the SCOTUS Heller v DC decision. I've said for years that he opinion would come back to haunt gun rights advocates and today I was proved right.

It's not in line with the Constitution and what Scalia wrote, only an activist liberal judge would say that.

He wrote that the Constitution protects weapons that could be carried and were in common use. The AR-15 is a rifle made for civilians not for war. Isn't the AR-15 which is the best selling rifle in America and owned by tens of millions of people in common use? What did he write to make you think that?

[DoverGunner]

Appear the judge dismissed the case, didn't even hear it. They NEED to appeal this. AND SCOTUS GET OFF YOUR ARSE AND HEAR ONE OF THESE CASES.

Really ???

Considering the current make up of the Court Do you really want to Chance it ?? I for one Do Not !!!!!!!!!!

With Roberts , Kennedy , Ginsburg ,Sotomayor and Kagan we Would Lose Big Time . Please let one retire and one Pass on . Then yes lets do it

[ScottFM]

 

 

Appear the judge dismissed the case, didn't even hear it. They NEED to appeal this. AND SCOTUS GET OFF YOUR ARSE AND HEAR ONE OF THESE CASES.

The MA court ruling is in line with what Scalia wrote in the SCOTUS Heller v DC decision. I've said for years that he opinion would come back to haunt gun rights advocates and today I was proved right.

It's not in line with the Constitution and what Scalia wrote, only an activist liberal judge would say that.

He wrote that the Constitution protects weapons that could be carried and were in common use. The AR-15 is a rifle made for civilians not for war. Isn't the AR-15 which is the best selling rifle in America and owned by tens of millions of people in common use? What did he write to make you think that?

 

The judge that made this decision was appointed by Ronald Reagan and is a Republican. so not at all "liberal activist." He even went out of his way to say that this decision was consistent with the writing of Scalia. Sorry, facts.

 

What is interesting is that the judge also made a statement that the popularity of the gun makes no difference. That is the interesting part as he also re-affirmed another part of the Scalia majority opinion from Heller, that it was up to the states to regulate and that their decisions were not a matter for the courts. Article 1 Section 8 of the US Consitution, which Scalia had to figure a way around to declare the right to bear arms an individual right was that he had to state that the militia is a person. In that Article 1 Section 8 allows the states to decide how to regulate the militia or now, because of Scalia and the Heller decision means that they can regulate the person and the personal right. It was a sticky decision and now the parts are being used by the other side.

 

http://www.mad.uscourts.gov/boston/young.htm

[lilguy]

One by one I’ve started taking my rifles to Cabelas, selling them off while there are states that allow them. I don’t want to wait until we have to turn them in or cut them up. It’s coming,

[vito]

I doubt that the judge does not know that the 2A was fully intended to allow civilians to own military weaponry, and thus be the match of the actual army that might oppress the People. He is likely just another Northeast liberal who just "knows" that guns are bad and any law that limits guns must be a good thing. The time is long past where judges felt obligated to review laws based upon what the Constitution allows or does not allow. Now it is all about legislating from the bench. And while it may not be the best time for the Supreme Court to take up a case like this one, I think it is more likely that the Supreme Court just does not want the controversy that would result from a ruling in either direction on guns.

 

Ever since the Parkland shooting I have felt that things have changed, and I'm afraid I was right. We well might be facing the strongest anti-2A public climate in the last 50 years right now, and might be lucky if the worst we suffer is a new AWB.

[Hipshot Percussion]

"..., which Scalia had to figure a way around to declare the right to bear arms an individual right was that he had to state that the militia is a person. In that Article 1 Section 8 allows the states to decide how to regulate the militia or now, because of Scalia and the Heller decision means that they can regulate the person and the personal right. It was a sticky decision and now the parts are being used by the other side.

 

 

 

http://www.mad.uscourts.gov/boston/young.htm

 

I think the Second already affirms the militia is the people... it didn't need Scalia to affirm that. "... the Right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms..." Not the Right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment makes that distinction all on its own. In the end, it's hard to have respect for a judge when they declare they understand the framers intent of the Second Amendment, but are too stupid to grasp the language of "...shall not be infringed."

[bmurph44]

What percentage of households possess an AR?

 

I’m guessing it’s very small and most people won’t care about this law.

[Mark C.]

What percentage of households possess an AR?

I’m guessing it’s very small and most people won’t care about this law.

If you believe for one second that they won’t come after semi-auto handguns, bolt action rifles with a scope or your Joe Biden approved shotgun in the future, you’re being naive...

[bmurph44]

 

What percentage of households possess an AR?

I’m guessing it’s very small and most people won’t care about this law.

If you believe for one second that they won’t come after semi-auto handguns, bolt action rifles with a scope or your Joe Biden approved shotgun in the future, you’re being naive...

That’s my point, then people will start caring.

[cope]

What percentage of households possess an AR?

 

I’m guessing it’s very small and most people won’t care about this law.

 

According to estimates 3%

[cybermgk]

 

Appear the judge dismissed the case, didn't even hear it. They NEED to appeal this. AND SCOTUS GET OFF YOUR ARSE AND HEAR ONE OF THESE CASES.

The MA court ruling is in line with what Scalia wrote in the SCOTUS Heller v DC decision. I've said for years that he opinion would come back to haunt gun rights advocates and today I was proved right.

 

See, I disagree. Heller said home rule could apply for safety UNLESS it was banning a large class of guns in common use. THese AWBs are getting very, and way too broad. IMHO they are banning a class of guns in common use..

[357]

 

What percentage of households possess an AR?

I’m guessing it’s very small and most people won’t care about this law.

 

According to estimates 3%

Wow, we are own worst enemies. Semi-automatic firearms are the most popular and the most widely used and the antis call them "assault weapons" and want to ban them all. Once they ban the rifles, "assault" pistols will be next. Where did you get the 3% from? Even the antis don't say that, Dave Chipman who is an ex ATF agent and now works for Giffords estimates 10 million AR-15 in circulation. I think you are confusing it but "assault weapons" account for 3% of all murders.

 

"We do know from statements of gun manufacturer CEOs that since Newtown, about 65% of the average 3 million rifles sold annually have been AR-15s." Add to that the other panics since 2008 and all the rifles imported from overseas and parts kits and lower receivers sold which are very popular and many people build and customize their own rifles and are not accounted in the statistics of rifles build in the US. Do the math. Someone who did the research and has a conservative estimate of 23 million "assault rifles" build in the US from 1986 to 2017. I'm including the link.

 

"Sales of stripped lowers, which are just the serialized part of an AR-pattern rifle, are counted as miscellaneous firearms in the ATF numbers"

 

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article201882739.html

 

https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-guns-in-the-US-are-semiautomatics

[Twostarrz]

https://www.quora.com/What-do-the-terms-%E2%80%98arms%E2%80%99-%E2%80%98well-regulated%E2%80%99-and-%E2%80%98militia%E2%80%99-mean-in-the-Second-Amendment

Read this carefully and then explain to me how ANY determination against the second is constitutional.

[cope]

 

 

What percentage of households possess an AR?

I’m guessing it’s very small and most people won’t care about this law.

According to estimates 3%

Wow, we are own worst enemies. Semi-automatic firearms are the most popular and the most widely used and the antis call them "assault weapons" and want to ban them all. Once they ban the rifles, "assault" pistols will be next. Where did you get the 3% from? Even the antis don't say that, Dave Chipman who is an ex ATF agent and now works for Giffords estimates 10 million AR-15 in circulation. I think you are confusing it but "assault weapons" account for 3% of all murders.

 

 

you answered the question for yourself

 

you say about 3% is wrong because its closer to 10M

 

10M is about 3%

 

Math

[Hipshot Percussion]

 

 

 

 

What percentage of households possess an AR?

I’m guessing it’s very small and most people won’t care about this law.

According to estimates 3%

you answered the question for yourself

 

you say about 3% is wrong because its closer to 10M

 

10M is about 3%

 

Math

 

There are 126 million households in America. 126m / 10 m = 12.6%

[Grayhawk]

10 /126 = 7.9%

[357]

What percentage of households possess an AR?

I’m guessing it’s very small and most people won’t care about this law.

 

According to estimates 3%

 

Wow, we are own worst enemies. Semi-automatic firearms are the most popular and the most widely used and the antis call them "assault weapons" and want to ban them all. Once they ban the rifles, "assault" pistols will be next. Where did you get the 3% from? Even the antis don't say that, Dave Chipman who is an ex ATF agent and now works for Giffords estimates 10 million AR-15 in circulation. I think you are confusing it but "assault weapons" account for 3% of all murders.

 

 

you answered the question for yourself

 

you say about 3% is wrong because its closer to 10M

 

10M is about 3%

 

Math

 

I didn't say that, that's what you said and the anti from Giffords. I provided link with estimate of 23 million AR-15 produced from 1986-2017. The total number of semi-automatic rifles "assault weapons" I say is at least 40 millions out of a total of more than 300 million firearms.

[InterestedBystander]

I read an article earlier that the NRA estimates between 8.5 million and 15 million "assault" rifles are in circulation based on manufacturer data. There are no specific numbers nor any way to really know.

 

A 2016 report had more than half of all of the firearms out there in the hands of 3% "super owners," (133M+) who have an average of 17 guns each.

[vito]

I believe that the estimate of 3% of the gun owners owning half the guns has been discredited. Surveys of who owns guns are notoriously inaccurate. With all of the hysteria over guns and all of the efforts by some to restrict or outlaw gun ownership, I am not surprised if many owners deny such, or just refuse to answer. Some physicians have been asking patients if they have a gun in the house. Not answering is as good as admitting you have guns in your home. The best strategy is to just lie and say no. If I were called on the phone by someone claiming to be doing a gun survey I certainly would not share any information with them about any guns that I might or might not own. The reality is that background check numbers have been going through the roof in recent years, as has attendance at NRA conventions. Crowds at gun stores around where I live in the Midwest are larger than I have seen in many years. But in fairness, there are plenty of gun owners that do not think of themselves as gun owners at all. Two of my son-in-laws would probably, without thinking about it, say that they do not a gun in their home. I know for a fact that one has a 22 rifle from his Dad, and one has a 38 revolver that I gave him, but neither are "gun people" by any stretch.

 

With the cost of an AR, I would be surprised if more than a tiny fraction have been allowed to become unusable or destroyed or lost. If 23 million were made, I would be surprised if anything less than 20 million are still in circulation.

[InterestedBystander]

..."Surveys of who owns guns are notoriously inaccurate. With all of the hysteria over guns and all of the efforts by some to restrict or outlaw gun ownership, I am not surprised if many owners deny such, or just refuse to answer"...

 

Absolutely. I may have even been guilty of that myself in the past. ;-)

[MagSlap]

"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.

 

Coming next year....

 

"The Glock an 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.

 

Because..afterall...'back then' didn't exist either...and like a AR, there will be 'individual bearing'...for sumthing like that...

Oh never mind...it doesnt have to make sense...its liberalism... and/or evil draconian leftism.

 

The STOOPID that is liberalism never gets old...

And liberals that can't understand the 'route' being taken as well as the 'goal' are either morons or lying to themselves. Either way, these are not people who should be in charge...

[chislinger]

The judge that made this decision was appointed by Ronald Reagan and is a Republican. so not at all "liberal activist." He even went out of his way to say that this decision was consistent with the writing of Scalia. Sorry, facts.[/url]

About those "facts", Scalia wrote: "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."

 

The judge either completely ignored that bit or like others completely twisted it around to mean the exact opposite of what Scalia said.

[Hipshot Percussion]

10 /126 = 7.9%

Grayhawk it's the funniest thing. I'm on way home from a family Greek Easter dinner and I'm driving down 355, my mind wandering and that equation jumped into my head from out of nowhere! I sat in the car thinking 'you idiot... you did it backwards..." I got home and first thing came on here to see who corrected it LOL! :) I'm old... so at least I have an excuse!

[cope]

actually a silly argument about the number but I will continue down the path just the same......... if we say 23 million produced... 20 million of which are in circulation

 

then we say (guessing) 20% are sitting somewhere on a store shelf or in a warehouse.... that leaves 16 million in someones home

 

another assumption based off personal experience..... if someone owns 1 they own 2 and often more..... but lets say half the people own 2 and half only own 1

 

that actually brings us to about 7% +- of households

 

this sure is a lot of assumptions and guesswork based off information that nobody really has...... so I would say 3% isnt that far off either considering we have no clue how many are actually in circulation