AWB Challenge Filed in Massachusetts

Knuckle Dragger · Jan 26, 2017

It's not like there was any other choice at this point. Enjoy. Complaint

jcutonilli · Jan 26, 2017

It was not that enjoyable to read. It appears to be the same cookie cutter approach to the AWB ban that has been presented in other courts. With the exception of the 4th circuit, which the en banc is likely to correct, all other courts have upheld the ban. Looks like yet another loss because lawyers don't know how to argue a case.

LeadSled1 · Mar 15, 2018

Gains traction, judge refuses to dismiss.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/article205255574.html

frogman68 · Apr 6, 2018

and it has been upheld by Regan appointed Judge . Glad I ate lunch before seeing it

GlocksAndPatriots · Apr 6, 2018

He basically used the same idiotic "reasoning" as every other judge post Heller. Said that the legislature has full discretion to decide what to ban. The judges apply a level of scrutiny to the 2nd Amendment that they don't apply to any other Constitutional right. It's bad faith. There's nothing more to it.

frogman68 · Apr 6, 2018

GlocksAndPatriots said:
He basically used the same idiotic "reasoning" as every other judge post Heller. Said that the legislature has full discretion to decide what to ban. The judges apply a level of scrutiny to the 2nd Amendment that they don't apply to any other Constitutional right. It's bad faith. There's nothing more to it.

the worst part is where he says

Ar15 and its large cap magazines (he didn't say clip 2 points) were not in the original meaning of the 2nd amendment.

******** , will he say that the Internet was not the original intent of the 1st amendment

GlocksAndPatriots · Apr 6, 2018

frogman68 said:
the worst part is where he says

Ar15 and its large cap magazines (he didn't say clip 2 points) were not in the original meaning of the 2nd amendment.

******** , will he say that the Internet was not the original intent of the 1st amendment

Exactly. It's not even worth trying to dissect a ruling when it's obviously in bad faith.

krucam · Apr 6, 2018

Link to ruling?

GlocksAndPatriots · Apr 6, 2018

I just said a prayer for Ginsburg to get a fast moving brain tumor. We need this more than ever to save America.

danb · Apr 6, 2018

GlocksAndPatriots said:
I just said a prayer for Ginsburg to get a fast moving brain tumor. We need this more than ever to save America.

There is no guarantee a republican appointee would be better. Judges are elitists, and tend to dismiss the idea that citizens should be as well armed as the govt.

frogman68 · Apr 6, 2018

danb said:
There is no guarantee a republican appointee would be better. Judges are elitists, and tend to dismiss the idea that citizens should be as well armed as the govt.

This "judge " was appointed by Regan

whistlersmother · Apr 6, 2018

danb said:
There is no guarantee a republican appointee would be better. Judges are elitists, and tend to dismiss the idea that citizens should be as well armed as the govt.

Bingo. SCOTUS is part of the tyranny - and we expect them to preserve the means to overthrow them?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

krucam · Apr 6, 2018

Steaming pile...

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.186305/gov.uscourts.mad.186305.93.0.pdf

rockstarr · Apr 6, 2018

has one of these ever been overturned?

babalou · Apr 6, 2018

BullSh!+ unbelievable!!

NoMoreTreadingOnUs · Apr 6, 2018

At the bottom of page 27 of the decision:

"Weapons that are most useful in military service, as Justice Scalia later observed, fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment and may be banned."

Can someone please direct me to a source for this claim? I understood the Miller decision and Scalia's reasoning in Heller to make the opposite point, i.e. that the right applies to those weapons used by the militia (you and me) aka those weapons in common use for lawful purposes.

Am I confused?

Ghostrider1 · Apr 6, 2018

The judge quoted Feinstein butchering Scalia’s opinion in Heller, not the decision itself. From Heller:

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.

NoMoreTreadingOnUs · Apr 6, 2018

Ghostrider1 said:
The judge quoted Feinstein butchering Scalia’s opinion in Heller, not the decision itself. From Heller:

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.

May be a distinction without a difference but the judge seems to reference Heller (and is that not how it’s supposed to work?) and at the top of page 28 goes on to state that the AR-15 falls outside the scope of the 2A.

Maybe at 53 I’m still naive, but shouldn’t reading comprehension and logical reasoning be minimum requirements to be a judge?

JPG · Apr 6, 2018

NoMoreTreadingOnUs said:
At the bottom of page 27 of the decision:

"Weapons that are most useful in military service, as Justice Scalia later observed, fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment and may be banned."

Can someone please direct me to a source for this claim? I understood the Miller decision and Scalia's reasoning in Heller to make the opposite point, i.e. that the right applies to those weapons used by the militia (you and me) aka those weapons in common use for lawful purposes.

Am I confused?

I thought miller said short barred (sawed off) shotguns could be banned BECAUSE they were not used by the military (militia). So I guess now if the military CAN use them the civilians can't? :sad20:

NoMoreTreadingOnUs · Apr 6, 2018

JPG said:
I thought miller said short barred (sawed off) shotguns could be banned BECAUSE they were not used by the military (militia). So I guess now if the military CAN use them the civilians can't?

That is my understanding of Miller, FWIW.

AWB Challenge Filed in Massachusetts

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

товарищ плачевная

Banned

товарищ плачевная

Banned

Ultimate Member

Banned

dont be a dumbass

товарищ плачевная

Peace through strength

Ultimate Member

Major Deplorable

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics