Connect with us

News

District Court: Massachusetts ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Is Constitutional

The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed a complaint against the state’s “assault weapons” ban on Friday and expressly described similar bans as constitutional.

The court explained its decision to dismiss the complaint by stating that “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.’”

Because a ban on the AR-15 and “large capacity magazines” is, in its opinion, constitutional, the court ruled that the question of whether a ban exists is one to be decided by legislatures, not judges.

The court added:

In the absence of federal legislation, Massachusetts is free to ban these weapons and large capacity magazines. Other states are equally free to leave unregulated and available to their law-abiding citizens. Their 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.

Whereas the District Court says AR-15s and “large capacity magazines” do not fall “within the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to ‘bear arms,’” Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch used his confirmation to stress that the test for constitutional protections of a given firearm is whether it is in “common use.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement
3 Comments

3 Comments

  1. Denis Palmer

    April 7, 2018 at 3:02 am

    time to start eliminating idiot judges that cannot read,

  2. John

    April 7, 2018 at 3:05 am

    Well we will see how this goes in front of the Supreme Court.

  3. Freddie Burleson

    April 7, 2018 at 4:40 am

    Well I want to have the so called Justice to point out the phrase “Common Sense” in the Second Amendment. No such wording can be found. Define “Common Sense”, Justice, please do that. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect the Citizens from Government Over reach. The Musket in colonial times, was the “Assault Weapon” The Second Amendment was meant to allow Individuals to own Military Weapons, in order to maintain a FREE STATE. United States Supreme Court, in 2008 ruled in Heller vs D.C.that the Second Amendment is an Individual Right and the Supreme Court in 2010 ruling of McDonald vs Chicago addressed the the issue if States could restrict the Second Amendment by the States. States can not restrict Individuals from “KEEPING AND BEARING ARMS”. This will not hold up in front of the Supreme Court, because Federal Congress repealed the Assault Weapons Ban, thus you have a Right Under Federal Law to own one, that carries over to the States, under McDonald vs Chicago. I would refuse to turn mine in, because it is Unconstitutional.

Leave a Reply

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

CF