Courtesy of CBS News:#BREAKING Court upholds our enforcement of the Massachusetts assault weapons ban. Declares that the AR-15 and other assault weapons "fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment and may be banned." https://t.co/H3ed25UPqo pic.twitter.com/YPG3MWLC0x— Maura Healey (@MassAGO) April 6, 2018
A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit challenging Massachusetts' ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, saying in a ruling released Friday that the weapons fall beyond the reach of the Second Amendment. U.S. District Judge William Young said assault weapons are military firearms and aren't protected by the constitutional right to "bear arms." Regulation of the weapons is a matter of policy, not for the courts, he said.
"Other states are equally free to leave them unregulated and available to their law-abiding citizens," Young said. "These policy matters are simply not of constitutional moment. Americans are not afraid of bumptious, raucous and robust debate about these matters. We call it democracy."
Democratic state Attorney General Maura Healey said the ruling "vindicates the right of the people of Massachusetts to protect themselves from these weapons of war."
"Strong gun laws save lives, and we will not be intimidated by the gun lobby in our efforts to end the sale of assault weapons and protect our communities and schools," she said in a statement. "Families across the country should take heart in this victory," she said.
Look at that, common sense does still actually exist in this debate over guns.
I think that gun policy in this country is finally going to get a much needed makeover.
One that is long overdue.
Trump has done one thing positive-- make Americans read the Constitution objectively. This post is very good news.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, both Humpty Trumpty and Sessions want to diminish the power of all courts. The courts keep getting in the way of things THEY feel need to be done.
DeleteHe didn't exactly "do" anything positive.
DeleteI don't care how loud they bleat "2nd Amendment!" There is absolutely no reason for assault weapon ownership. If you want one, strict laws to qualify and you must follow in possession. What's the bitch? It IS common sense.
ReplyDeleteBanning ALL military style weapons is even better when it comes to common sense!
DeleteYou can thank Dubya for that, Leland, he lifted the ban.
Delete"Efforts to create restrictions on assault weapons at the federal government level intensified in 1989 after 34 children and a teacher were shot and five children killed in Stockton, Calif. with a semi-automatic AK-47 rifle.
DeleteThe Luby's shooting in October 1991, which left 23 people dead and 27 wounded, was another factor. The July 1993 101 California Street shooting also contributed to passage of the ban. The shooter killed eight people and wounded six. Two of the three firearms he used were TEC-9 semi-automatic handguns with Hellfire triggers. The ban tried to address public concerns about mass shootings by restricting firearms that met the criteria for what it defined as a "semiautomatic assault weapon", as well as magazines that met the criteria for what it defined as a
"large capacity ammunition feeding device"
In November 1993, the proposed legislation passed the U.S. Senate. The bill's author, Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and other advocates said that it was a weakened version of the original proposal.
In May 1994, former presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan, wrote to the U.S. House of Representatives in support of banning "semi-automatic assault guns".
They cited a 1993 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll that found 77 percent of Americans supported a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of such weapons.
Rep. Jack Brooks (D-TX), then chair of the House Judiciary Committee, tried unsuccessfully to remove the assault weapons ban section from the crime bill.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) opposed the ban. In November 1993, NRA spokesman Bill McIntyre said that assault weapons
"are used in only 1 percent of all crimes".
The low usage statistic was supported in a 1999 Department of Justice brief. The legislation passed in September 1994 with the assault weapon ban section expiring in 2004 due to its
sunset provision."
'In law, desuetude (/dɪˈsjuːɪˌtjuːd/ or /ˈdɛswɪtjuːd/; from the French: désuétude, from the Latin: desuetudo English: outdated, no longer custom) is a doctrine that causes statutes, similar legislation or legal principles to lapse and become unenforceable by a long habit of non-enforcement or lapse of time. It is what happens to laws that are not repealed when they become obsolete. It is the legal doctrine that long and continued non-use of a law renders it invalid, at least in the sense that courts will no longer tolerate punishing its transgressors.'
What I will never get, 7:55 AM/Leland.
DeleteDubya leaves office and decides he will paint the stress away. Dogs, flowers. Oh, here's a brilliant idea, I'll do a book "Portraits Of Courage," painting maimed vets from a useless war I sent them into.
To this DAY, I want to twist his nose off every time I see him.
Has anyone else noticed that the states with strongest gun laws tend to be "blue states" and often one of the founding states? And, the strongest advocates of "second amedment rights" are more often "red states" -- joined the union way after the founding fathers wrote that amendment?
ReplyDeleteThus, those who shout that "the founding fathers" meant there to be no restrictions on gun ownership, at all, regardless of type of gun, who the owners are, etc -- loyal NRA people are those who reside in newer states, with no real ties to the writing of the law? But, those people in states that were around in the beginning, where founding fathers lived and worked seem to be the most likely to think they would not be OK with what is going on here re: guns. Kinda makes you wonder, doesn't it?
It's a temporary win.
ReplyDeleteThe NRA will simply push this to the Supreme Court and let the Deplorables on the SCOTUS fuck over the country.
Anyone else aware that there is an opening on the ninth circuit due to the death of the most liberal judge? Can't believe Trump is taking so long to appoint a replacement. Probably can't find anyone horrible enough to stick it to the ninth court. I only hope he waits until after the new congress is seated from the November 2018 elections. That's our only hope, to block all of his confirmations.
Meanwhile the "Democrat" from North Dakota is going to put the climate denying coal mine lobbyist as 2nd in command at the EPA. He'll be in line to move up when Pruitt gets his ass kicked.
Yes that same bunch allowed citizen united aka money in politics aka corporations have a vote. This is the outcome, boobs gone wild and guns galore. The sorry usa of maga. Time for change!! Overturn citizen united and again ban all assault weapons.
DeleteWill the judge necessarily ban Jesus?
ReplyDeleteAmerica can do without that longhaired socialist carpenter.