AR-15’s present day popularity is not constitutionally material.
U.S. District Judge
April 6, 2018
Judge rules: Massachusetts’ assault weapons ban doesn’t violate 2nd Amendment
[I am reminded of US v. Miller (emphasis added):
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. “A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.” And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
And of US v. Heller (emphasis added):
as we have
explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those
“in common use at the time.”
I find it odd that a U.S. District Judge has such poor reading comprehension skills. Perhaps Alzheimer’s has taken it’s toll and it’s time for him to get professional care. Or was it someone had blackmail material on him?
Unless it was some sort of serious health issue he should be prosecuted.—Joe]
So, the Semi-auto AR series of rifles are not protected because they are not actual military rifles in common use by soldiers and marines, and the M-4, M-16 and M-14, as well as the M-60 are not protected because they are capable of full-auto military type fire.
Hold onto your Garands*, boys, they seem to be the only ones that fall into that “Goldilocks Zone”.
Knowing only the result and this excerpt, I don’t know how this decision can survive appeal, but with judges one never knows.
*And any other surplus weapon actually issued to an army as a battle rifle.
Although I’m aware of previous rulings that eviscerate them, I think we should be bringing the 9th and 10th amendment into play as well. It seems to be that the people are retaining the right to own an AR15 pattern rifle.
That’s about as dumb as ‘just because a certain firearm is used for sporting purposes doesn’t mean it has a sporting application.’
I read through the ruling. That looked like a lot of jiggery poker to get to the part where the popularity of pistols is acceptable but not ARs. They kept referencing Heller as saying that military grade rifles “and the like” aren’t protected by the 2nd amendment (in conflict with Miller). It seems they then applied the definition of “M16s and the like” to AR15s because they are “like” M16s. They also painted Scalia as a gun grabber which doesn’t smell right since he said after Heller that all handheld weapons including rocket launcher may be protected by the 2A.
I’ll need to read through Heller again I suppose because I don’t remember the part where it removed constitutional protections from certain firearms.
“Jiggery Poker”. Lay terminology for “outcome-based judicial rulings”, which is just as dirty a phrase as you think it is.
IOW, it’s ripe for appeal to the SCOTUS and a nationwide application.
Someone smarter than me help me understand this please. I’m not sure which Heller the Mass. District court read but it doesn’t look like the same one I’m reading:
“We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment ’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra”
Scalia also included this:
“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.”
It would almost seem that Scalia was round-about invalidating the NFA without actually saying it. In any case I don’t understand how Heller could be read as anything but an expansion of protections on firearms ownership and carrying.
He is reading the one that gets nullified all the time by lower court judges and the Supreme Court does nothing.
Oh I see that makes sense now.
This guy certainly seems to be a prime candidate for impeachment, removal from office, and prosecution for perjury.
Or just an unfortunate accident with exercise equipment that leads to his retirement. You know, like Harry Reid.
Yes, but I prefer impeachment because it would send a useful message to all the others like him.
You need 2/3 to convict and at least (probably more) 49 Senators agree with him.
True. But just the impeachment would be a useful symbolic act, and since the votes are required to be by roll call, it would tell us explicitly who the enemy are.
There is NOTHING WRONG with Judge Young’s comprehension and knowledge of the law and the Constitution. The problem is he DOESN’T
CARE. He is one of literally HUNDREDS of agenda driven commie liberal
judges that were put on the bench over the past 2 decades for the EXPRESS
REASON of disregarding the Constitution and issuing rulings that support
the commie demonrat agenda. There is simply NO BASIS whatsoever in law,
fact, reason or the Constitution that Judge Young can point to which supports
his decision and he makes no meaningful effort to provide one. He merely issued the ruling his handlers wanted and stated that WE DON’T NEED such
things as AR’s and 30 round mags and because we don’t need them as far as he and his ilk are concerned they are therefore NOT PROTECTED by the Second Amendment. And sadly because he is not alone….there are literally HUNDREDS if not thousands of judges who think JUST LIKE HIM those seeking
justice in regards to their 2A rights being abused have NO LEGAL RECOURSE.
Any lawsuit such as the one just filed in Illinois against the Deerpark ruling banning semiauto firearms is DOOMED the moment the ink is dry. And with the
wholehearted effort by the left to subvert voting and allow countless aliens and illegals to vote ( FOR THEM AND THEIR AGENDA) conservative America in reality only has one of the “boxes” of freedom left. The Cartridge Box.