BREAKING: Massachusetts’ Reinterpreted Assault Weapons Ban Upheld by US District Court

courtesy boston herald

“The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional rights to ‘bear arms.’” That’s the considered opinion of U.S. District Judge William Young in slapping down a challenge to Massachusetts’ reinterpreted “assault weapons” ban.

Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey was sued by a gun-rights group in response to her July 2016 enforcement notice that broadened the definition of “copies or duplicates” of AR-15 and AK-47 models that are prohibited under the state’s 1998 assault-weapon bans.

You may remember that after the Pulse Nightclub shooting in 2016, Healey unilaterally changed the state’s interpretation of what constitutes an “assault weapon.” Her goal was to ban not only standard AR-15 and AK-47 rifles as the law states, but also other versions of the guns that had been redesigned to get around the law’s definition of what constitutes an assault rifle.

So with today’s ruling the court has is saying that Healey’s unilateral decision to ban certain guns that weren’t covered by the original Massachusetts AWB is A-OK. Guns that many in the state have purchased after the ban law passed. Guns that now make them criminals. All with the stroke of her pen.

Maybe you’re wondering on what legal ground did the Judge Young base his opinion. The answer: Antonin Scalia’s Heller ruling.

Young, nominated by former President Ronald Reagan, backed his decision by quoting the late conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in a landmark 2008 decision that overturned Washington’s ban on hand guns. The ruling expanded individual gun rights but said the right isn’t unlimited.

“Weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like” aren’t protected by the Second Amendment and “may be banned,” Young quoted Scalia as saying.

You had to figure Scalia’s opinion limiting the right to keep and bear arms to weapons “in common use at the time” would come back to bite us. And this isn’t the first time.

Hold on, though. It gets worse.

Young also rejected attempts by the gun-rights group to challenge the ban on the grounds that AR-15s are extremely popular in the U.S.

“The AR-15’s present day popularity is not constitutionally material,” Young said. “This is because the words of our Constitution are not mutable. They mean the same today as they did 227 years ago when the Second Amendment was adopted.”

If you’re thinking that the Massachusetts legislature might object to Healey’s power grab as an encroachment on their legislative authority, think again. The state’s legislature is dominated by Democrats, most of whom are thrilled to see stronger gun control at any cost. They’re not about to raise a finger to challenge Healey.

James Campbell, the lawyer for plaintiffs including the Gun Owners’ Action League Inc., didn’t immediately return a call for comment on the ruling. The NRA’s press office didn’t immediately return a call for comment.

The term “assault weapons” is non-technical and “entirely fabricated” to politicize the most popular types of guns in the U.S., according to the gun owners’ complaint.

Huh? How did that last sentence make it into a Bloomberg news piece?

Whatever. You would think this ruling would be a good candidate for a Supreme Court appeal. However the top court has been noticeably hesitant to take any Second Amendment cases in recent years. Could that change if Anthony Kennedy retires as has been rumored? Your guess is as good as ours.

Happy Friday.



  1. avatar DoomGuy says:

    You mean a bunch of communist judges upholding a communist unconstitutional law from a communist politician?

    This is my shocked face: 😐

    1. avatar Danny says:

      “Communist” is a word that means something. It is not just some synonym for “bad,” or for “thinks guns are bad.”

      1. avatar Alexander says:

        Communist is a socialist who is in the final stage of creating a socialist dystopia – killing off all those oppose him. So, in this case, it would be “communist” with a small “c,” since they are presently destroying their enemies non-lethally.

        1. avatar Helms Deep says:

          Dear ‘ Kangaroo Court ‘ and so-called ‘ judges ‘ …. I FART IN YOUR GENERAL DIRECTION !

          Lets review what … ‘ Consent of the governed ‘ , means , shall we ?

        2. avatar Sprocket says:

          “Statist” is probably a more apt term. These people care little about ideology. They are all about the maintenance of power.

        3. avatar Joe R. says:

          That’s an ideology, and it could be called communism.

          We fuck up communists as a general matter of US NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY. How our fuck’d reps are silent on these shitsticks just means they’re in on it.

      2. avatar rosignol says:

        Danny, the posters here are well aware of what Communism is.

        We treat it as a synonym for ‘bad’ because the words we want to use to describe it would result in the post being blocked by the profanity filter.

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          Don’t count me wholly in that group then. I’m using “communism” and “communist” in the literal and classic definition sense. I only use lower case as ‘FU you ain’t worth upper case’, in the same manner that I have to override the spell corretion to leave satan lower case (go back and check).

    2. avatar Rad Man says:

      AG Healey is not a legislator nor judge but she was allowed to make this law under the guise of consumer product safety, which is part of her office’s charge – apparently. I’ve been a lawyer in Massachusetts for almost 20 years and thought I’d seen it all. Nope.

      The practical effect is this: if you have a mag-fed semi auto with a pistol grip, there’s no way for you to make it compliant as the receiver and the gun’s operation is substantially the same as prohibited weapons. Healey went so far as to refer to compliant weapons as “circumventing” state law. Yes, if you comply with Massachusetts law you’re really not.

      About the only guns I can think of right now which aren’t affected would be M14 variants and similar Ruger Mini 14s and 30s. In other words, conventionally-stocked mag fed semi autos seem to be ok. This is a bitter pill to swallow for MA residents. This was once the birthplace of liberty. Now it’s the state where rights go to die.

      God help us all.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        Rad – You have a legal background, tell me if this is an angle to explore –

        In the ruling : “This is because the words of our Constitution are not mutable. They mean the same today as they did 227 years ago when the Second Amendment was adopted.”

        OK, then.

        There are quite a few words in use today that mean little to nothing like words used in the 1700s.

        Compile as extensive as possible a list of those words, then point out how ‘regulated’ meant ‘in proper running order’ back then.

        Shove that down their throats. And if the 2A means only muskets, then freedom of the press applies only to hand-written material or printed material from a hand-operated press, one at a time.

        If they want a war on words, hit back as hard as we can. Force them to play by their own rules, Alinsky-style…

        1. avatar Rad Man says:

          It’s a lofty notion G, but such an approach presupposes that facts win lawsuits. That’s generally true in personal injury or contract litigation but not when it comes to the Constitution. Judges rule on their ideology rather than pesky things like facts. Contorting Justice Scalia’s words is a prime example of using someone’s words against them – particularly when they’re no longer around to dispute an incorrect, contrary interpretation. Judge Young ruled based on how he wishes the Constitution was written rather than the ‘strict’ reading most of us use. This appeal was decided before it was filed.

        2. avatar Joe R. says:

          “Shall not be Infringed” means “we’re actually gonna fing kill you for that, you stupid evil fing POS (D)bags” [as our Founders knew there’d always be ‘those’ types.]

        3. avatar Geoff PR says:

          OK, how about this –

          2A protected firearms include those typically carried by a police officer on patrol in their cruiser.

          That locks down Glock standard high-capacity handguns, 12 gauge pump or semi-auto shotguns, and AR-pattern rifles with 30 round magazines for us.

          That provides firepower equality between the citizen and the state. If they can have it, we should have it.

          The cops can’t claim they are ‘out-gunned’.

          How does that sound? Seems reasonable to me…

        4. avatar LarryinTX says:

          How does this moron reason away what “shall not be infringed” meant 227 years ago?

      2. avatar Art out West says:

        The word “Militia” is in the Second Amendment. That word specifically tells us that “Military type weapons of war’ are precisely what is protected. Military type weapons keep a free state secure.

        The 2nd Amendment may not protect my LCP, but it definitely protects my AR and AK (and the full auto big brothers as well).

        Congress needs to remove corrupt and evil judges like this. The judge knows damn well what the Constitution says, and just decided to take a crap on it.

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          The Declaration of Independence is what we promise to each other. The Constitution only approximates (in as few words as practicable) how we’ll live and get-along at that and what we’ll institute to collectively protect it. (We’re currently on our 3rd Version)

          Let’s visit the U.S. National Archives, shall we?

          Talking about “mutable” / “unmutable” “(D)bags in robes fucking themselves with something sharp and heavy” . . . How about we stick with some FUCKING “FLESH LANGUAGE” That brackets the Framer’s intent best [cause, if it don’t, we can fucking have-at right here and right the fuck now].

          The Declaration of Independence starts out with “When” – meaning that it might not (likely) only happen once: “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth [THAT MEANS “ARMS” MFr, OR ROCKS OR STICKS OR BOILING TAR, OR ACID, IT MEANS WHATEVER-THE-FUCK ANYONE CAN MANAGE], the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. [MEANS WE SHOULD WARN EACH OTHER TO QUIT FUCKING AROUND, FIRST (and so, you’re ‘on notice’, ok? FU, that’s all you get)]”

          The 2nd Paragraph of the Declaration begins “We hold these truths to be self-evident” [MEANING – GET IT, OR DON’T STUPID, IGNORANCE IS NO EXCUSE AND LIFE WILL BE PROSECUTED ON THE LIVING REGARDLESS OF AGE / GENDER / OR STATION]. The Declaration continues with “that all men are created equal” [MEANS – NO > = PIGS] “that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights [emphasis theirs]” [MEANS – THOSE RIGHTS ARE BESTOWED BY THE ALMIGHTY, AND ARE
          I M M U T A B L E
          UNTIL JESUS CALLS US ALL HOME]. “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” [NUFF SAID THERE? FU, PRESS ON]
          CONTINUES. . .(literally)

          Further ” . . .That whenever . . .” [MEANS – IT’S AN OPEN-ENDED, AND DAY-TO-DAY, MOMENT-TO MOMENT QUESTION TO BE CONSIDERED] “any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,”

          AND IT’S SO FING IMPORTANT THAT SAYS IT AGAIN. . . “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

          SO, we don’t just need “assault” “weapons” WE DEMAND PARITY OF ARMS OF OUR GOVERNMENT (which is comprised of our stupid ahole neighbors who needed a job, who sought a position of SERVICE in our “government”, and who may, or may not usurp power and become tyrannical BUT WE DON’T HAVE TO WAIT FOR THAT TO HAPPEN).

          IT IS
          W H O L L Y
          I L L O G I C A L
          TO DO SO.


          BUT, AGAIN AND STILL –
          READ THE MOTHERFv<KER ! ! !

        2. avatar M10 says:

          Art, you are exactly right. There’s nothing in the Constitution about “hunting” or “sporting purposes”. We are letting these people define away the exact weapons that our forefathers wanted protected. And before anyone says that they didn’t envision the AR-15 back then, it doesn’t matter – the populace needs whatever type of weapon is appropriate for defending their constitutional rights “for the present times”.

        3. avatar Rock says:

          We don’t have a government. It’s all a sham. We are ruled by secret societies. They have decided that it’s time to disarm and depopulate, and there’s nothing you or anyone else can do to stop it.

      3. avatar Michael A Long says:

        So, this judge used Heller to uphold the ban. Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Heller specifically affirm U.S. v Miller?
        (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

    3. avatar nativeson says:

      Having read the opinion, here are my thoughts:
      1. Antonin Scalia was, for the most part, a superb judge. However, he was not infallible and had no authority to amend or restrict the 2A through his interpretations of history. Here, his interpretation seems at obvious odds with the context in which the 2A was adopted and the Federalist Papers.
      2. The Constitution is the final precedent in all things constitutional, not an opinion approved by five judges. And, as we have seen, Supreme Court justices have often misinterpreted the Constitution throughout our history, ruling that slavery, segregation and the wholesale internment of an ethnic group were constitutional. This case simply builds upon the faulty reasoning of Heller and its progeny – as will the next case. And, the Constitution will fade into the distance in the process.
      3. Judge Young only grudgingly acknowledges the right of the individual to keep and bear arms after citing Lawrence Tribe and other well-known leftist authorities for the contrary proposition.
      4. Applying Judge Young’s standard for banning the AR 15 (“that is like an M16”) to a broader category of arms, I suspect that he would also ban any item that has a look-alike counterpoint that was developed for or implemented by the military (ACOGs, red dot scopes, muzzle brakes, etc.) Hell, under this line of reasoning most semi-automatic pistols could also be banned.
      5. Whenever the left has five dependable anti-2A judges on the Supreme Court the Heller decision will be overturned. The left will claim the right to do so on the basis of the same ‘evolving standards of decency’ that they relied upon in undermining capital punishment.

      1. avatar neiowa says:

        Young is NOT. at 78years is apparently senile and certainly has been in office way too long (33yr).

        1. avatar tmm says:

          Perhaps he is ripe for stealing underwear…

      2. avatar rosignol says:

        Scalia was a brilliant judge.

        He wrote the best decision possible that would get 5 votes from the court, as it was composed at the time.

        Is it perfect? Hell, no. Work remains to be done, and if we want it to get done, we need a Republican Senate and a Republican President to make that happen.

        You want to stop the tide of gun control that Bloomberg’s been pushing? Reach out to your elected representatives and tell them, politely, to ignore the astroturf and not give the people who elected them a reason to stay home on election day. Phone calls do get counted, letters do get read. This stuff matters.

    4. avatar Salty Bear says:

      Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. The destruction of the bourgeois democrats’ influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as possible – these are the main points which the proletariat and therefore the League must keep in mind during and after the approaching uprising.
      -Karl Marx

      1. avatar DoomGuy says:

        And Mao said that political power grows from the barrel of a gun, doesn’t make either of them advocates for firearms freedom, or freedom in general. As a matter of fact, I seem to recall Marx saying something about the destruction of everything resembling the old ways (including the murder of a significant portion of the population so that knowledge would die with them), and Mao implementing such a notion through the cultural revolution which resulted in the destruction of 60 million people and the erasure of 5000 years of culture and history.

    5. avatar Arc says:

      The judge has ruled, now let the judge enforce…

    6. avatar Jackrabbitt 1957 says:

      This moron wants to ban assault weapons, l wonder if she would have tried it in 1778? The brits had an assualt rifle capable of inflicting horrific wounds both with a 3 quarter inch bullet and a huge bayonet. Assault weapon is a realitive term. We still beat the brits back and we can beat idiots like these as well.

    7. avatar Anthony says:

      Tennessee says come & get some bitch!!

  2. avatar Mark says:

    This is really bad. It will embolden other communist states to enact bans. Like the one I live in…WA. tick, tick, tick

    1. avatar Francis says:

      Standing with you. We need SCOTUS to rule that individuals are constitutionally protected to be armed as light infantry at a minimum. This protection should include semiautomatic rifles in military calibers with standard capacity magazines (20 rounds or more for 7.62 NATO and 30 rounds or more for 5.56 NATO), current issue US Military sidearm, current issue or better edged weapons, current issue or better body armor, and current issue or better optics. These are minimumly protected arms. Accessory arms should include current issue or better shotguns, precision rifles and designated marksman rifles. There should be no government requirement infringing on concealed or open carry or transfer for law abiding citizens. Period.

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        The ruling should be: There shall be no law banning or controlling the keeping and bearing of arms passed by the Federal government or State governments. If a State wants to infringe on the right of the people, that State must seceded from the Union. If the Federal government wants to infringe on human rights, they must amend the Constitution using the means within the Constitution.

        1. avatar Tiger says:

          That is never going to fly. Bank on it.

      2. avatar Tiger says:

        They pick and choose the cases. And it still has to go to appeal.

    2. avatar Danny says:

      Are we just going to change the meaning of the word “communist” to mean “thinks guns are bad”?

      We have “hoplophobe.” It seems like it would be better to use that word, with the actual meaning we want, rather than using an old word to mean something entirely new and different just because it has pejorative qualities.

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        Is there any Communist that is totally fine with the people being well armed?

        1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          Sure, just depends on the people who are armed.

        2. avatar anonymoose says:

          Karl Marx.

        3. avatar Joe R. says:

          The end-goal of communism is to be the last guy on the back end of a human-millipede.

        4. avatar LarryinTX says:

          A would-be communist dictator who is not yet in power.

      2. avatar Mark says:

        Leftists oppose guns. Leftists are communists. One in the same. Also, the gun grabbers tend to be communists when you look at all their other policies. I call ’em as I see ’em.

    3. avatar Defens says:

      Washington ducked a ban (well, quasi-ban – registration, etc., etc.) when the last legislative session ended. I fully expect to see a Nick Hanauer, Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Mike Bloomberg – bolstered initiative campaign to put a ban on the ballot.

      This development would be apocalyptic. Where POTG have the ability to at least influence legislative hijinks, the advertising onslaught for an initiative would bring out droves of anti-gunners. Unfortunately, there would be traitors on our side – the same FUDDs that voted for the UBC bill that we currently ignore and most LEO refuse to enforce. I fear that an “assault weapons” ban would pass in an initiative, and since these are usually horribly written, who know how far the tentacles of tyranny would stretch.

      1. avatar Francis says:

        WA may simply skip the legislative and/or ballot altogether. Bob Ferguson may follow Healey and grab the same pen she used. All that the WA Bob Ferguson needs to do now is make the same declaration that MA Healey did, and make semiautomatic rifles and detachable magazines banned and not protected by the 2A. This new MA approach can be replicated as quick as the AGs can sign the paper. Watch for the press release in Olympia and Seattle.

        1. avatar Mark says:

          Ferguson is no dummy. Something must be preventing him from doing this otherwise why wouldn’t he have done this 2 years ago? I think he wants others to do his dirty work (i.e. ballot initiative/legislature).

        2. avatar Ing says:

          Right. Unlike MA, which went full Democrat progtard long ago, WA still has a lot of voters who could unseat him and his fellow collectivists PDQ if he overreaches. He’s preparing the way for future assaults.

        3. avatar Francis says:

          Mark and Ing, I hope you’re right about a lot of voters who could unseat Ferguson and his political comrades. Ferguson certainly is not ashamed of preparing the way for future disarmament.

  3. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

    Here is a link to the ruling if anyone is interested. I haven’t read it yet.

  4. avatar FortWorthColtGuy says:

    Judges will use Scalia’s “dangerous and unusual” ruling to ban everything. After all, a single shot .22 rifle is “dangerous” and not around during the founding.

    Why the SCOTUS won’t take this case and settle it once and for all I don’t understand. Even if we lose, we know we did our best and fought the good fight.

    1. avatar nativeson says:

      Nowhere in the Second Amendment does it provide a carve-out for “dangerous and unusual” arms. That phrase is a very unfortunate creation of Scalia, and we should expect anti-2A judges to cite it as they further infringe on our RKBA. That a Reagan appointee chose to do so is simply rubbing salt in the wound. Taken to its logical conclusion, this decision would allow any state legislature or the federal government to ban all AR 15s, bullpups, magazine-fed shotguns, and I suspect, many semi-auto pistols – leaving you and I and every sane person in this country with precious few options to oppose tyranny and protect our families. This decision flies in the face of the intent of the Founders who wanted the citizens to have the arms necessary to stop the formation of a tyrannical government. If this decision is allowed to stand, Judge Young will have taken a gigantic step in that direction.

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        “That phrase [dangerous and unusual] is a very unfortunate creation of Scalia.” That is simply not true. His interpretation of it and reliance on secondary sources for that interpretation is what’s very unfortunate.

        Here is a link to an article about it.

        1. avatar Res says:

          I read as much as i could in one sitting. Enought to consider that “Dangerous and unusual” would mean a class of weapon that was both dangerous AND unusual. A weapon not dangerous is not a weapon, obviously. The jist is to describe any weapons not common, those outside of commonplace ex, firebombs , grenades, infernal machines with whirling reaper blades like Davinchi schemed of. There is a more important part of Heller, the Scalia opinion that mention of “[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” . The corrupt interpretation by MA is to twist words in any way that achieves their desired goal of incremental or total disarmament. No lie is unthinkable except that which net hinders them. Today “common use” would clearly allow AR15s and any semi automatic pistol or rifle in use and owned now and any future arm of similar utility and capacity(so called hi cap mags), knives, bats , machetes, sticks etc. , “unusual and dangerous” should at this point be clear to mean items outside that category, grenades, napalm, high explosives. Also perhaps less evident is that the intention of the user if “dishonorable” modifies, someone with clear ill intent and action, particularly action, can be disarmed, presumably by armed good acting individuals.

        2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          The important part is in the abstract. “This paper examines the historical use and definition of the phrase “Dangerous and Unusual Weapons” and concludes that it refers not to a class of weapons, but to a class of behavior.” That conclusion is backed up in the paper itself. Now I haven’t examined all the references in the paper because 1) time and 2) I doubt I even have access to many of the old sources.

          If you have the time, finish reading the paper. I think most here would enjoy it.

          The problem is getting a test from the Supreme Court. Judges and lawyers love a test. It makes things easy, especially if it has elements and not factors.

          The problem of applying the intermediate, strict scrutiny line of tests is that public safety will always meet the first prong of either test. Therefore, I think they are inappropriate tests for the 2A.

          The problem with your test is that it has a circular logic problem. Why aren’t machineguns legal? They aren’t in common use. Why aren’t they in common use? They’re illegal.

        3. avatar nativeson says:

          Having reading the Heller opinion in its entirety again, I stand corrected. Although he was a brilliant jurist, Scalia was not infallible, and unfortunately, the courts will continue to build upon the faulty foundation that he laid in Heller.

        4. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          The paper I linked to has a theory that Scalia’s “faulty foundation” was intentional because it brought Kennedy on board. Once a right is established, it isn’t easy to just take it away. That’s one of the reasons we still have abortion. At least that’s what O’Connor said.

          Down the road, someone can say, “that’s not right; the Court didn’t consider this.” Then the majority can say, “the Court didn’t consider that. We have good reason to overturn this restriction.” The last paragraph of the paper, footnotes included, lays out the theory.

        5. avatar Joe R. says:

          @ Nativeson

          “Having reading the Heller opinion in its entirety again, I stand corrected. Although he was a brilliant jurist, Scalia was not infallible, and unfortunately, the courts will continue to build upon the faulty foundation that he laid in Heller.”

          NO (human) JUDGE / COURT IS INFALLIBLE



          Or else one (might) would be required to “spring from the womb, fully formed and armed to the teeth, to beat back the encroaching barbs of what they did to that person’s great-great-grandfather” / “For otherwise, they are untouchable by the persons they serve except by abandonment of societal agreement, and the resultant violence.” [J.M. Thomas R., TERMS, 2012]

    2. avatar Tiger says:

      Their priorities & yours are not the same. Only Justice Thomas agrees with us 100%.

    3. avatar 2aguy says:

      Nope……the follow up ruling from the Supreme Court in Caetano v. Massachusetts deals with the dangerous and unusual point and specifically protects semi automatic rifles…..and other weapons because they are in Common Use….don’t let these anti gun judges fool you….Caetano was the Court slapping down the 4th Circuit when they tried to ban stun guns and they went on to define Dangerous and Unusual and explained it did not include guns that were in common use…..The ban on semi auto rifles, and the AR-15 in particular is un Constitutional through D.C. v. Heller and Caetano v. Massachusetts and 2nd Amendment supporters have to stop getting duped whenever the anti gunners misquote Scalia or lie about what Heller and Caetano say…

      First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

      Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

      Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.

      —-As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).

      That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment.

      First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

      Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.
      Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.

      Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.

      If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.———

      The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.

      But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.

      Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        You’re quoting the concurring opinion, not the Court’s opinion. The Court’s opinion starts with “PER CURIAM” and ends with “It is so ordered.”

        The concurring opinion is that of Alito and Thomas only.

  5. avatar Baldwin says:

    “This is because the words of our Constitution are not mutable. They mean the same today as they did 227 years ago when the Second Amendment was adopted.” “…shall not be infringed…” Am I missing something here?

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      Nope, you got it.

      Thanks man.

  6. avatar Muhammad says:

    The old geezers on the Supreme Court need to understand that an AR-15 is not the same as an M16. Guys, we are headed for trouble…

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      People apparently don’t understand that the oppressors are in full attack mode. They finally reached the point where they don’t have much resistance and they can write in their bills that the Constitution can’t stop the enforcement of their illegal laws.

      TTAG is about to be killed off, the NRA wasn’t and still isn’t on the people’s side and Alexander Jones completely sold out to the New Leftists [Republicans].

      1. avatar Tiger says:

        Jay, step back from the bridge rail. There is no need to jump just yet…

        1. avatar Michael in AK says:

          Hitler was Time magazines person of the year in 1939…

          Things change rapidly. ..

        2. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

          Looking for a solution to this issue from the political process is fruitless. Our politicians aren’t listening.

        3. avatar Ragnar says:

          Michael, I think Hitler was Time’s Man of the Year for 1938 and Stalin was 1939.

          Still validates your point.

      2. avatar blunt truth says:

        Yes, but it must me a massive nation wide coordinated effort, not some or a few
        “Gun nuts” going off half cocked. We DON’T want or need another Ruby ridge, Waco, Or Oklahoma City. We need the public opinion sympathetic to our cause.
        (liberty and freedom)

    2. avatar Res says:

      I think there is an understanding that there is a difference between m16s an ar15s on the part of the anti “management”. I think it is a deliberate exploit to sway low information people to their side. It exploits the ignorant and proud of it, to the the objective of disarmament through laws that serve only to restrict and burden the law abiding. If anthing this is a guerilla propaganda war waged against the whole of constitutional rights, certainly the 4th A protection against unreasonable search and seizure is rendered null by ubiquitous spying on law abiding US citizens by the formerly NoSuchAgency and corporations that routinely turn over personal information to government, the 1st A now crippled by political correctness lies and so called “safe space”, and “anti hate speech” ideology. The march of lies ralleys are bare faced indoctination schemes, bought and paid for by opportunistic anti gun leftist organizations eager to put innocent childrens faces on their ugly activities. The fact is the progressive left is gambling a lot on this, if we can as pro constitution Americans help make them stumble, they will face plant like hillary did in her monumental failure to gain presidential office. Always vote, no matter ho w bad the media makes it look. We will loose many battles, but we have to keep at it, the progressive lefts main tools are deception, extremist gullible low information voters and money from the progressive class, all that will run out of steam as any false ideology that never comes through on promises cannot keep itself going.

  7. avatar Ed says:


    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      Fargin’ Bastachussetts.

  8. avatar stateisevil says:

    You don’t say!? Lol. They keep calling our bluff, and they’re right every time so why not?

  9. avatar AZD says:

    I hope Smith and Wesson can take a hint.

    1. avatar Mark says:

      S and W are fucking asshats for not leaving back in 2016 when this shit went down. They are dead to me. Fuck them.

      1. I’ve been to their factory. It’s immense. 480,000 square feet. And they have a lot of very skilled people building guns, some who’ve been there for decades.

        Moving would be an enormous expense. We’re not talking about an operation the size of Kahr Arms here. It would cost tens of millions of dollars (at least) to pick up stakes and relocate.

        1. avatar Mark says:

          Their size is EXACTLY why they should move. It would send a big FUCK YOU to MA. Also, Beretta moved and they are a very large company. It can be done. Until that day, I’ll never buy a thing from S and W as I don’t want MA to get a penny from me.

        2. avatar Tiger says:

          Hey, Winchester moved. Beretta moved. Marlin moved. Weatherby is moving….

  10. avatar Sc says:

    Is it just me, or wouldn’t that conflict with the ban on Short barreled rifles and shotguns in Miller, as they weren’t considered to be useful for militia service. Or I could just be hoping for some kind of good in all of this. And for the last bleeping time, and AR-15 is not an M-16. Seriously.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      Miller was effectively overturned by Heller. It’s not good law anymore.

      You can’t argue that an AR-15 isn’t like an M-16; which is what the judge is saying.

      You can argue Scalia meant the M-16 and other machineguns, not AR-15s and the like.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        @ TX_Lawyer:

        “You can’t argue that an AR-15 isn’t like an M-16; which is what the judge is saying.”

        You can’t argue that neither are “arms”. And we demand parity of arms with our government. They don’t need to provide them, or make them ‘cheaper’ or more obtainable, they just have to accept that we have no less of a right to them than they have or they have to go in a violent enough way to be at least a thoughtful hindrance to such behavior on the next batch of assholes.

        We have the Declaration of Independence, NONE of the Constitution will be allowed to fuck with what we demand of / for / and from each other in the Declaration. If they want to try it, then they might get voted off the island (and they might not make it to the island).

        1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          So when do we start killing people because the Constitution, much less the principles in the Declaration, is being violated every day all over the country. There are only 13 constitutional carry states. Does that mean we need bloody revolution in 37 states?

        2. avatar tamscomcj says:

          You ask the question our founding fathers asked themselves… when?

        3. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          An attempted seizure of arms and ordinance was what finally kicked off the revolution.

          I’m just trying to say either advocate revolution or don’t. I don’t like beating around the bush.

        4. avatar tamscomcj says:

          hopefully the answer to “when?” is never. That is what our founding fathers also hoped.

        5. avatar Joe R. says:

          I get the feeling you’re going to find that people started without you.

    2. avatar Defens says:

      Yep. In Miller, the ruling was that a short-barrelled shotgun wasn’t really useful as a militia arm, and was therefore not subject to protection under 2A. Now, asshat Young claims that arms that ARE absolutely useful as militia arms AREN’T protected under 2A. Amazing how interpretations vary based on personal enmity.

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        Law should not be “interpreted” because that leads to “loophole” talk, redefining legislation with modern understandings and spirit of the law decrees. Laws are supposed to be written in a specific manner and have everything defined within. The law should be thrown out if it requires “interpreting.”

      2. avatar John in AK says:

        Most people mentioning ‘Miller’ forget that this case was NOT fully adjudicated.
        Neither Miller (or his co-defendant Layton) or their attorneys appeared before the court. Miller was murdered long before the final decision came down, and his counsel did not pursue the case.
        The Government presented the argument that the 2nd Amendment protects ONLY the ownership of military-type weapons ‘appropriate for use in an organized militia.’
        Interesting, that bit. . .
        It also argued that the sawed-off shotgun at the centre of the case was never used in any militia (military) organization.
        Prior to the case reaching the Supreme Court, a District court judge declared that the 1934 NFA section prohibiting the gun in question was UnConstitutional, and dismissed the indictment, only to have the federal government reinstate it.
        ‘Miller’ should NOT establish any real precedent in determining what is, and what is not, a ‘militia weapon,’ particularly as no evidence either way was introduced–including evidence to the fact that short-barreled shotguns were COMMON in military use, dating back at least to the American civil war. The Supreme Court itself admitted just that–that they could not rule otherwise than in favor of the Government, as no evidence had been submitted to them by the defendants.
        Bluntly, ‘Miller’ was a TERRIBLE case, unworthy of the Court, and does not define the 2nd Amendment in any meaningful way.

  11. avatar DrewR55 says:

    And, of course, I have no doubt that the Supreme Court Justices will be tripping all over themselves to hear this case as they did with the California ‘May Issue’ case and Maryland Assault Weapons Ban… wait, they declined to hear those cases? Crap.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Or the Highland Park AR ban that was upheld by the 7th Circuit because such a ban might make people “feel” safer, and therefore was in the public interest.

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        That was some bad legal writing. People’s feelings should never be a sufficient governmental interest in any heightened scrutiny context. If you’re going to make a bad argument, at least make one that makes sense.

        Would people feeling safer when an agency only hires men be enough to allow that agency to discriminate against qualified women?

      2. avatar John in AK says:

        It’s probably a good thing that the Supreme Court declined to grant certiorari to the Highland Park case when they did, as the case would’ve been decided with Liberal judges in the majority on the Court.
        Now, should the Deer Park or Massachusetts cases be granted certiorari, with SANE judges in the majority, ‘things’ may very well be decided differently, and in favour of the 2nd Amendment as it was written.
        I think that this was what Scalia intended and planned when he wrote his Heller and McDonald decisions for that majority; He just didn’t plan on dying, which always slows a fellow down.

        1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          The balance of the court hasn’t changed since 2015. Scalia was conservative and replaced with a conservative.

  12. avatar Rick the Bear says:


    I escaped, but my son is still trapped there.

  13. avatar CZJay says:

    Their argument is: the 2nd Amendment was for muskets only; not for modern rifles, handguns, magazines and ammunition. Also, Justice Scalia’s opinion made sure to throw in a caveat saying that modern arms are not protected by the 2nd Amendment, that there can be infringements on most guns.

    Yet pro self preservation people think Scalia’s opinion was a win for them when it actually was the old, “I support the Second Amendment, but…” He actually opened up the States to pass illegal laws that infringe on the people’s human rights.

    If no one follows the law and the court system is against the people, the Constitution is completely irrelevant and tyranny is in full bloom.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Justice Scalia’s opinion made sure to throw in a caveat saying that modern arms are not protected by the 2nd Amendment, that there can be infringements on most guns.

      Yeah, except that conflicts with the 1939 U.S. v. Miller decision from the U.S. Supreme Court which upholds our right o keep and bear arms that are relevant to a militia and the U.S. military.

      1. avatar Charles says:

        Scalia does not say this. The left keeps twisting what he said and repeating their misquote so that people believe it, but it is wrong. What he said is ““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.”

    2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      “He actually opened up the States to pass illegal laws that infringe on the people’s human rights.” Like all the laws that were being struck down left and right before Heller?

      Scalia didn’t open anything up. Heller was the first federal decision to stick that struck down any gun control law. Before that, many judges would have been happy to just say that the 2A doesn’t protect an individuals right. This judge was one of them. In fact, this judge couldn’t help himself and basically said so in the first sentence of his opinion.

      1. avatar Sc says:

        it seems to me that it is simply a blatantly intentional misinterpretation of Scalia’s writing, i take offense to this personally, and would have hoped that an actual sitting judge would have better character, and even a slight sense of honor.

        1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          I don’t disagree.

    3. avatar Higgs says:

      last time i checked the second amendment said arms, not guns, not muskets.

      weapons and ammunition; armaments.
      “they were subjugated by force of arms”
      synonyms: weapons, weaponry, firearms, guns, ordnance, artillery, armaments, munitions, matériel

      Antis keep finding words in the constitution that are not there.

  14. avatar John Boch says:

    Did anyone really expect anything else?


    Gotta get through district court to get to the appellate level!


    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      I know, right. It’s not like the Reagan appointee who had to be approved by Ted “Chappaquiddick” Kennedy was going to be a bastion of conservatism.

  15. avatar P-Dog says:

    A sad day. The words escape me.

  16. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    This is why what Trump has been doing is so important. We need to replace wimpy useless appointees from Reagan and Bush 41. The top of my wish list are Ginsburg and Kennedy.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      If we get to wish for two, I’m going with Kagan and Sotomayor, who, like Ginsburg, were appointed by Democrats. Time will take care of Ginsburg and Kennedy sooner than later, but maybe not soon enough.

      And Thomas was a great Bush 41 appointment.

    2. avatar Joe R. says:

      None of them are worth half a wet tick-turd.

      You think it’s any different than it is with “journalists” or “teachers”, you get a few bad ones in the bunch and the whole pipeline gets clogged by a particular kind of asshole.

      We need a citizen JURIS


  17. avatar Setnakhte says:

    I can’t believe it. The “technology freeze on the Constitution” argument is upheld by a judge?!

    Better not disagree with the Masshole government on internet media; that wasn’t “press” as the Founders knew it, so one won’t be covered by 1A in the People’s Republic of Taxachusetts.

    1. avatar Tiger says:

      It’s the clam chowder. It has secret powers to give you a bad accent, turn you lefty & a Pats fan….

  18. avatar Native Born American - Born FREE says:

    The Tree of Liberty is nearly dead. It’s in desperate need of watering with the blood of tyrants and Patriots.
    The winds of war are blowing harder and harder.

    If it’s a war they want, it’s a war they’ll get. Screw the tyrants. It’s far too late to nip this in the bud. That ugly flower is in nearly full bloom. Time to get out the Round-Up and douse the whole thing.


    1. avatar Tiger says:

      Oh crap…. chill with that stuff. You sound like the You Tube lady.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        . . . or Thomas Paine.

        Chill with the “chill” dude. Or you’ll wake up one day begging him.

      2. avatar Michael in AK says:

        That’s the attitude of a subject, not a citizen.

  19. avatar Darkstar says:

    “The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional rights to ‘bear arms”

    So…….would that mean that Radio, TV, Internet, Twitter, Instagram, etc, etc are NOT covered under the 1st ammendment? After all they are not within the original meaning of the right of free speech?

    1. avatar Francis says:

      So that would mean that the 2A doesn’t protect what it was intended to protect in MA. This ruling makes the 2A dead, null and void in MA. The only thing left for people of MA is their God given right. When will they star voting with tightly grouped ballots?

    2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      No. It means that AR-15s are not covered by the 2A because the 2A doesn’t establish a right to keep and bear arms. The right to keep and bear arms pre-exists the Constitution. The Constitution simply protects that right, whatever it is. It’s kind of like if some future space colony had a constitution that said “the rights protected by the American Bill of Rights shall not be infringed by this government.” To figure out what those protected rights were, you would have to look back to the U.S. Constitution.

      To see what that right is, we must examine history. The Heller opinion states that historically, “dangerous and unusual” weapons were subject to banning. If they were subject to banning, then they were not part of the right to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court said M-16s and the like are subject to ban under this historic limit to the right. This court is saying that AR-15s are like M-16s and not protected.

      I disagree that dangerous and unusual weapons were subject to banning. See the paper by Daniel Page I linked to above for why I think that, if you’re interested. I disagree that AR-15s are like M-16s in the context of 2A protections. Unfortunately for the 2A, I’m not on the Supreme Court.

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        I forgot to mention that the closest thing to a definition of dangerous and unusual I’ve seen is the “M-16 rifles and the like.” It’s not very specific or helpful.

  20. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    “The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional rights to ‘bear arms.” — U.S. District Judge William Young

    Oh boy! That means our First Amendment Freedom of the Press only applies to 1790s vintage quill pens and printing presses — and could never apply to modern ball-point pens, high-capacity printing methods, laserjet printers, radio, television, and Internet.

    And Freedom of Speech only applies to 1790s vintage town criers and whatever signs would have been available back then — and could never apply to modern methods of print, radio, television, and Internet.

    As for our Constitutional Freedom to Peaceably Assemble and Petition Government for a Redress of Grievances, that only applies to rallies organized via word-of-mouth — and does not apply to rallies organized via radio, television, Internet, social media, nor smart phones.

  21. avatar TheUnspoken says:

    It seems they interpret backwards. Because the second amendment doesn’t say the right to bear AR15s then they should be banned. That isn’t the question. The question is whether a law or regulation banning arms causes infringement. They are requiring the second to provide the burden of proof rather than placing it on the regulation in question.

    There might not be a Second Amendment to repeal by the time they have turned it into “the right to have two arms on your body.”

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      You have to register those hands with the government.

  22. avatar Mike says:

    Gun owners are some of most law abiding citizens of the USA, and we keep complying with more and more onerous laws against our civil rights.
    The courts view the 2nd Amendment as a disfavored second class right and do not enforce it, they basically ignore it .
    You can make a difference by commenting on the BATFE proposed Bumpstock ban, at least they have to respond to you. Who knows maybe we’ll get a much needed victory.

    Go here make a comment, then go back and comment again,and again . there is only 82 days until comments are shut.

  23. avatar CZJay says:

    I can’t stand when people use a previous judge’s opinion/ruling to decide all future cases and when they use that opinion to write invisible laws. I think it’s shameful that a judge’s opinion carries more weight than the written law itself.

    1. avatar Setnakhte says:

      Ironically, the stare decisis doctrine was designed in order to discourage legislating from the bench. It doesn’t seem to stop them from twisting such words while denying reality, though.

  24. avatar Carl B. says:

    This piece of fascist s*** will be overturned.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      Just like the laws in California, right?

  25. avatar Scooter says:

    According to previous ruling the prefatory clause was found essentially superfluous, with the intent of the active clause as the solitary portion allowed, all be it with the concept that it could be regulated. However, the prefatory clause references militia indicating military weapons were the subject of discussion… which has now become the issue. Layman’s terms? The front part of 2A maybe didn’t matter before, but perhaps it should because we ain’t talkin’ about hunting.

  26. avatar John Thayer says:

    Nunn v. State: Georgia Supreme Court Decision

    ” ‘The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.’ ” The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree . . .”

  27. avatar DD says:

    I don’t get it…these stupid bastards are trying to start a breakdown in order… they in their gated community will be the first to face violence (right after ex wives and their lawyers)..just try to take a “illegal” ar15 or such from the poor bastard that puts in 60 hours a week to keep his family afloat…reap what you sow

  28. avatar Michael in AK says:

    Soap box, ballot box or cartridge box….we are dangerously close to the latter.

  29. avatar Ralph says:

    “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding”

    — Caetano v. Massachusetts

    You know what else was not in existence at the time of the founding? The vicious Irish Mafia cabal that runs the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      “… the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms …”

      prima facie — and yet judges ignore it anyway.

      Since Second Amendment protection is PRIMA FACIE (obvious on inspection and correct until proven otherwise) protection of all bearable arms, all judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement officers who attack us for nothing more than keeping and bearing bearable arms ARE ROGUE AGENTS OF THE STATE AND ARE NOT ACTING WITH RIGHTEOUS NOR LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY. In other words, such judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement officers have made themselves violent criminals.

  30. avatar neiowa says:

    When does the Senate begin removing from office judges who violate their oath to defend (not rewrite) the Constitution.

    1. avatar Dev says:

      HAHAH right after they learn fiscal responsibility, i.e. NEVER.

  31. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

    District courts, existing only as subsidiary to the Supreme Court, routinely ignore and oppose SC precedent.

    States, independent jurisdictions with their own existence, are routinely corralled, coerced, and cudgeled into compliance with federal diktats.

    “Federalism” — I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

  32. avatar GS650G says:

    That little part about states having local restrictions buried in HELLER is going to be used over and over again to strip guns from the list.

  33. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    Why you “need” a “high-capacity” magazine.

    If a peaceful person should need their gun, they’ll have the rounds in it, while the BG has however many rounds they packed, knowing they were going to start a fight.

    A defender’s larger-capacity magazine offsets a little the BG’s advantage from being able to tool up for the assault they know they’re about to make.

    Assuming for the sake of argument the legality of the ruling and administrative diktat, you gotta ask: Why do they want to disadvantage the people merely protecting themselves? Peaceful people are already at a disadvantage. Didn’t choose the place or time. General readiness, no specific preparation. Surprise. (“Pistols at dawn.” isn’t a thing so much.)

    So, now they can only have what’s in TinyMag(tm), while the BGs have whatever’s in as many mags as they can throw in their duffel.

  34. avatar Mad Max says:

    The judge has misinterpreted Scalia’s quote because he doesn’t understand (or doesn’t want to understand) the difference between an M-16 and an AR-15.

  35. avatar former water walker says:

    Who is surprised by this?!? Coming nationwide…

  36. avatar Lcsw says:

    Sooooo he’s a traitor then.

  37. avatar DJ says:

    At some point they were going to find away around or just ignore the Constitution. More cities passing gun and magazine bans. We are now at a point where you need to be thinking what am I prepared to do. III% or not. Molon labe? The choice is upon us.

    I would add the only mistake the Jewish people made was they complied with the laws until it was too late.

    Registration, Confiscation, Genocide the Marxist history of the Twentieth Century.

    My decision, 600 million firearms and 25 trillion rounds of ammo in the hands of legal citizens. At least legal today. Count me with the III%.

  38. avatar 2aguy says:

    This is why we all need to ignore Trump’s tweets and behavior and vote for Republicans in the 2018 midterms….we need Trump to replace ginsburg, and kennedy, and one can hope, roberts….and replace them with real Justices who understand the Constitution…..if you read what this moron judge says, he doesn’t even know the AR-15 rifle or semi automatic rifles… is clear as day…..and Heller already makes this ban unConstitutional since it specifically states that weapons that are in common use are protected as are any bearable arm…..Caetano v. Massachusetts already bitch slapped the 4th circuit for trying to ban stun guns and affirmed Heller and the protection of these rifles……any vote for a democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment.

  39. avatar 2aguy says:

    The judge lied about what Scalia said and no one goes and actually finds the quote…they are intentionally misquoting Scalia to lie ….

    Scalia is making fun of the dissent when he used that M-16 quote…..too many on our side aren’t reading Heller and just take for granted what the anti gunners quote from it…

    From Heller….what Scalia actually wrote about the M-16 and how he used it to defend these rifles as being protected by the 2nd Amendment…

    this judge deliberately misquoted Scalia to make this bogus ruling…..

    District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

    (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.


    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.

    1. avatar Citizen1 says:

      Exactly. The judge deliberately jumbled and took Scalia’s words out of context to say something he never said. The Heller ruling only determined pistols were protected, as were weapons “in common use for lawful purposes”, and reaffirmed the Miller ruling allowing bans on “dangerous and unusual” weapons. He did not rule in any way on military weapons, let alone non-military weapons that only bear a resemblance.

      No way this ruling would stand up to Supreme Court scrutiny. Of course, no way will cert be granted with the current lineup.

    2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      Also, all that language is dicta.

  40. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:


    1. avatar MonkeyGrip says:

      Yes indeed.

      The founding fathers thinking was that if “shall not be in fringed” is infringed upon then the US Constitution has been voided. Not sure even they foresaw clever people twist it into a document to take rights away and empower the government with abilities it specifically stated the feds do not have. Now it is used only by the powerful to gain more control over we the unpowerful people.

      If they win a gun ban because a semi auto has a specific design style then they can eventually ban all guns. Paranoia strikes deep.

      Hang on to your dreams.

  41. avatar Alexander says:

    I was under the impression that the US jurisprudence was loosely based on the Constitution and heavily based on legal precedent. According to Miller (1939), the Second Amendment applies (and protects) exclusively military-type firearms. Yet, we never hear Miller and the focus of judicial activism is to ban military-style firearms. Evidently, the current US jurisprudence is based exclusively on Hot Air.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      IIRC, there was trouble passing NFA due to 2A concerns, thus it was not a ban, it was simply a tax. 85 years later, that ruse has served us well, particularly since ’86, when additional machine guns were restricted to “government thugs only”, and I’m pretty sure I read recently that the last shred of pretense is gone, with ATF removed from “Treasury” to be placed in “Justice”. I would submit that not 10% of Senators or Representatives in the Congress of 1934 would vote for what has happened to NFA, it would be soundly defeated. But, one inch at a time …

  42. avatar ironicatbest says:

    Assault weapons ban, that’s great news, now the AK I paid $250 for is worth, watdyah think $1700 and the 75 round drum magazine, $45, now worth $450 . I’ve got some more “ass-salt” weapons too, I’m going to be rich, I tell yah rich. Hope they ban sidearms too, I will have so much fuckin money even I can run for president. What good news. Thank you Trump yah lieing son of a bitch

  43. avatar Daily Beatings says:

    Kennedy needs to retire and RGB needs to get more cancer because that’s the only way she’ll be leaving.

  44. avatar Kyle says:


    So let me get this straight, we count count on government to guarantee our right to defend ourselves from government should they chose to by tyrannical, by….say……reinterpreting constitutional protections including….for example…..the right to keep and bear arms.

    ….who could conceive of such a thing! /sarc.

  45. avatar John J. Lee says:

    “Weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like” aren’t protected by the Second Amendment and “may be banned,” Young quoted Scalia as saying.

    I’ve read similar mis-quotes of Scalia, most recently from Senator Feinstein’s questioning of then nominee Judge Gorsuch.

    “Even though Heller recognizes that “weapons that are most useful in military service – M16 rifles and the like – may be banned,” Heller, 554 U.S.”

    That erroneously suggests that weapons like the M16 can be banned. But the actual text of Heller reads… (capitalized mine)

    “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”

    Which suggests to me the opposite.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      It doesn’t suggest the opposite in context, but it doesn’t say a ban is constitutional either. The opinion does suggest the NFA is constitutional.

  46. avatar Gun Owning American says:

    Judges like this should be impeached.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      They should most definitely be removed from office. If impeachment is effective to that end, fantastic. If impeachment will not happen, then someone should exercise other options.

  47. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    This decision from this judge is just another in a long list of examples which clearly show that we are now a nation of men rather than a nation of laws.

    Such judges have declared themselves to be illegitimate and command no more righteous authority than a mafia boss.

    1. avatar Red in CO says:

      I’d actually say a mob boss has MORE righteous authority than assholes like this, simply because at least a mob boss has the honesty to not pretend his actions have any real legitimacy

  48. avatar ButtHurtz says:

    Screw it, it’s time to actively support eliminating tyrants.

  49. avatar piper says:

    All evidence is to the contrary. When the government acts lawless, the law is left to the people.

  50. avatar tamscomcj says:

    Comments on what I have seen so far:

    “dangerous and unusual” I always thought was applied as “suicidal” and/or not having a use in military conflict.

    Assault weapon is a wimpier and lighter version of period main battle rifles. AR10 in 1954 was deadlier in 7.62×51/.308 and a competitor to m14.. 223 is not allowed for deer hunting in many states because of lack of killing power…It just so happens assault rifles are cheaper and their ammo is 1/3 the cost…

    The 2nd amendment is a natural right and Christian duty (1772 – sam adams – rights of the colonist).
    The 2nd amendment is a Christian Biblical Duty, at least until the “final judgement” (check out Micah, Isaiah other places when you turn swords into plow shares – destroying weapons – and read farther you will see it tis the only time you can stop learning the arts/skills of war. Oh, you may want to check out what Cromwell and crew said about such things.).

    Check margin notes in Geneva Bible – they differ from all modern bible margin notes including King James.
    King James wanted the bibles changed to not have margin notes that promoted rebellion. Reading the quotes about Kings James, it seemed to me he was predicting the coming of Cromwell and crew…

    I am sorry. I just can not stop myself…from causing trouble.

  51. avatar Pg2 says:

    Soon the public will be disarmed. Freedom of speech already RIP. Then off to medical experiments with the lot of us.

  52. avatar Kyle in Upstate NY says:

    No surprise here. I honestly don’t know why these groups keep suing these states and localities for their assault weapons bans. The judges and courts are NOT going to strike them down. Unless there is any real chance of getting it to the Supreme Court, then it’s useless.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      I was surprised by the DC Circuit’s decision regarding shall issue, so you never really know.

  53. avatar Hannibal says:

    ““The AR-15’s present day popularity is not constitutionally material,” Young said. “This is because the words of our Constitution are not mutable. They mean the same today as they did 227 years ago when the Second Amendment was adopted…”

    Funny, nowhere in the Constitution do I see the word “musket” or “magazine capacity.”

    Or does he mean the Constitution only protects that which was around at the time? Do we really need to list all the caselaw that this directly breaks relating to the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments? Sorry guys, 1st Amendment doesn’t apply to anything except parchment. And the police can tap your phone at anytime without a warrant because DUH phones didn’t exist back then.

    Whatever paper used to write this decision would have been better used for the toilet. Even other anti-2nd arguments are somewhat better or, at least, less directly contradictory. In any sane court system it would be thrown out as simply being absurd but the Court is afraid of the gun issue.

  54. avatar DerryM says:

    Looks like it’s time for some interstate donations to Gun Owners Action League to overturn this ruling.

    The gun grabbers finally figured-out that their “banning” of semi-automatic rifles based on functional but cosmetic features instead of internal mechanics and actual functionality was facilitating workarounds. The argument that 2A referred to black powder, single shot muzzle loaders is spurious because 2A only specifically uses the words “Arms”, but, for now, this legal ruling can/will be used to cause POTG grief in other gun hostile States.

    Hopefully, the NRA will assist GOAL in MA, but I am donating to GOAL and to the NRA to fight this thing. We HAVE to win this fight, folks.

  55. avatar Jaque says:

    The second American Revolution will begin where the first American Revolution began. And if the people of Massachusetts roll over and go back to sleep, then they deserve to be enslaved.

  56. avatar K Griffin says:

    Luckily for me I don’t give a damn what a judge says or the mindless liberal minions he serves.

  57. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    It seems I’m the only one who will give credit where credit is due. Former Gov William Weld signed this evil law into effect way back in the early 1990s. He quit the republican party over their disdain for him and the law he signed. Now he says he is a Libertarian!!! And the Libertarians believe he has changed, based on just his “good word”?????

    Libertarians are stupid fools trying to get people to like them.

    Now a socialist progressive lesbian AG is working to disarm the entire commonwealth, one gun at a time, using this Gov Weld signed law. Gay voters even after the pulse massacre still support this gay gun grabber. And the stupid Libertarians are looking to widen their appeal with a fake former republican!?!?!

    You guys are so screwed in Massachusetts.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      People claiming to be liberals and libertarians are a lot alike. They don’t know what those words mean.

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        At one time there was a real difference between the Libertarians Liberals and the Left. Now there is not.

        1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          The word liberal basically meant what conservative means today. The word in no way represents what the left or Democratic Party is doing. It is my opinion that the word libertarian is just a response to FDR redefining what the word liberal means.

          “Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on economic freedom.”

          “Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programmes such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality and international cooperation.”

  58. avatar Antone says:

    Tennessee says “come & get some bitch!”

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email