Federal judge rules Massachusetts assault weapons ban is consistent with recent landmark Supreme Court decision

[C_Clayton_Jones]

‘A federal judge ruled a Massachusetts ban on assault weapons is consistent with a recent landmark Supreme Court decision that established firearms regulations must be consistent with the nation’s “historical tradition.”

“The relevant history affirms the principle that in 1791, as now, there was a tradition of regulating ‘dangerous and unusual’ weapons – specifically, those that are not reasonably necessary for self-defense,” U.S. District Chief Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV wrote in an order Thursday.

The assault weapons prohibited by the Massachusetts ban are “not suitable for ordinary self-defense purposes, and pose substantial dangers far beyond those inherent in the design of ordinary firearms,” the judge wrote. The Massachusetts law prohibits some semiautomatic weapons and large-capacity magazines. It was passed in 1998 and was made permanent after a similar federal statute expired in 2004, according to the judge’s order.’

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/22/politics/massachusetts-assault-weapons-ban/index.html

“…not suitable for ordinary self-defense purposes…”

True.

And the decision recognizes Bruen and is consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

For those who disagree with the ruling, Judge Saylor isn’t the villain – that would be Thomas and his ‘historical tradition’ test; a ‘test’ that’s flawed, ham-handed, and poorly reasoned.

 

[Harry Dresden]

‘A federal judge ruled a Massachusetts ban on assault weapons is consistent with a recent landmark Supreme Court decision that established firearms regulations must be consistent with the nation’s “historical tradition.”

“The relevant history affirms the principle that in 1791, as now, there was a tradition of regulating ‘dangerous and unusual’ weapons – specifically, those that are not reasonably necessary for self-defense,” U.S. District Chief Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV wrote in an order Thursday.

The assault weapons prohibited by the Massachusetts ban are “not suitable for ordinary self-defense purposes, and pose substantial dangers far beyond those inherent in the design of ordinary firearms,” the judge wrote. The Massachusetts law prohibits some semiautomatic weapons and large-capacity magazines. It was passed in 1998 and was made permanent after a similar federal statute expired in 2004, according to the judge’s order.’

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/22/politics/massachusetts-assault-weapons-ban/index.html

“…not suitable for ordinary self-defense purposes…”

True.

And the decision recognizes Bruen and is consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

For those who disagree with the ruling, Judge Saylor isn’t the villain – that would be Thomas and his ‘historical tradition’ test; a ‘test’ that’s flawed, ham-handed, and poorly reasoned.

whats ordinary self defense jones?....

 

[JGalt]

whats ordinary self defense jones?....

Ordinary self defense is when three home invaders armed with AK-47's with 30-round magazines kick down your door, and all you're armed with is a pistol with a 10-round magazine.

In which case, you and your family dies.

3 elderly people killed in Massachusetts home as police warn ritzy city residents to lock windows, doors

 

[the watcher]

consistent with the nation’s “historical tradition.”

In other words, that's the way we always do it, next case.

 

[Mac-7]

whats ordinary self defense jones?....

Libs refuse to lock up criminals and they want to make it difficult for ordinary - there’s that word again - for ordinary citizens to defend themselves from the animals that lib hearts bleed for

 

[Mac-7]

I keep thinking of the Korean shopkeepers who protected their stores with guns when mobs of angry black rioters wanted to loot them and burn them out

Guns that bedwetting libs want to take away

 

[pknopp]

The self defense the founders were allowing was a self defense against the very government being installed. Granted they were allowing it for other aspects of self defense also but this will be overturned.

Sadly it was a weak ruling that allows this to start with.

 

[Bell Huey]

‘A federal judge ruled a Massachusetts ban on assault weapons is consistent with a recent landmark Supreme Court decision that established firearms regulations must be consistent with the nation’s “historical tradition.”

“The relevant history affirms the principle that in 1791, as now, there was a tradition of regulating ‘dangerous and unusual’ weapons – specifically, those that are not reasonably necessary for self-defense,” U.S. District Chief Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV wrote in an order Thursday.

The assault weapons prohibited by the Massachusetts ban are “not suitable for ordinary self-defense purposes, and pose substantial dangers far beyond those inherent in the design of ordinary firearms,” the judge wrote. The Massachusetts law prohibits some semiautomatic weapons and large-capacity magazines. It was passed in 1998 and was made permanent after a similar federal statute expired in 2004, according to the judge’s order.’

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/22/politics/massachusetts-assault-weapons-ban/index.html

“…not suitable for ordinary self-defense purposes…”

True.

And the decision recognizes Bruen and is consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

For those who disagree with the ruling, Judge Saylor isn’t the villain – that would be Thomas and his ‘historical tradition’ test; a ‘test’ that’s flawed, ham-handed, and poorly reasoned.

Their reasoning is dumb but you can get one of these in MA since the ban is based on exterior pieces, not function:

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Progressive liberal solution to violent crimes.......

1) Ban the mean looking guns, despite the fact they account for less than 3% of gun deaths.
2) Refuse to prosecute criminals who have the highest potential to commit a violent act, including a past record that includes violent crime.

And finally......

3) Pat themselves on the back for #1 and say people who didn't support the ban are soft on crime.

And THAT - is progressive liberalisn.

 

[2aguy]

‘A federal judge ruled a Massachusetts ban on assault weapons is consistent with a recent landmark Supreme Court decision that established firearms regulations must be consistent with the nation’s “historical tradition.”

“The relevant history affirms the principle that in 1791, as now, there was a tradition of regulating ‘dangerous and unusual’ weapons – specifically, those that are not reasonably necessary for self-defense,” U.S. District Chief Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV wrote in an order Thursday.

The assault weapons prohibited by the Massachusetts ban are “not suitable for ordinary self-defense purposes, and pose substantial dangers far beyond those inherent in the design of ordinary firearms,” the judge wrote. The Massachusetts law prohibits some semiautomatic weapons and large-capacity magazines. It was passed in 1998 and was made permanent after a similar federal statute expired in 2004, according to the judge’s order.’

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/22/politics/massachusetts-assault-weapons-ban/index.html

“…not suitable for ordinary self-defense purposes…”

True.

And the decision recognizes Bruen and is consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

For those who disagree with the ruling, Judge Saylor isn’t the villain – that would be Thomas and his ‘historical tradition’ test; a ‘test’ that’s flawed, ham-handed, and poorly reasoned.

Not even remotely true....

Justice Scalia, who wrote the Heller decision wrote in the Friedman v Highland Park decision that the AR-15 rifle is protected by the 2nd Amednment....

Then, Justice Alito, in Caetano v Massachuesetts also states that "Dangerous and unusual," can't be applied to rifles.......

You do not know what you are talking about...

Current Supreme Court Jurisprudence protects these rifles from idiots like you...


Scalia..

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

A more detailed quote from Friedman...

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411.

Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller.

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Opinion of the Court[edit]

Ihttps://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Opinion of the Court[edit]



In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

------





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

 

[M14 Shooter]

The assault weapons prohibited by the Massachusetts ban are “not suitable for ordinary self-defense purposes,

A lie.

and pose substantial dangers far beyond those inherent in the design of ordinary firearms,

Another lie.

No wonder -you- posted this.

 

[Captain Caveman]

whats ordinary self defense jones?....

Reasonable force

 

[Oddball]

whats ordinary self defense jones?....

Hit an intruder with his purse.

 

[2aguy]

Hit an intruder with his purse.

Actually, in Britain, that would be against the law......using an object to inflict injury to a violent attacker is prohibited by the British government......

 

[M14 Shooter]

whats ordinary self defense jones?....

A term inconsistent with the relevant holdings of the USSC from Heller to Bruen.

 

[Flash]

‘A federal judge ruled a Massachusetts ban on assault weapons is consistent with a recent landmark Supreme Court decision that established firearms regulations must be consistent with the nation’s “historical tradition.”

“The relevant history affirms the principle that in 1791, as now, there was a tradition of regulating ‘dangerous and unusual’ weapons – specifically, those that are not reasonably necessary for self-defense,” U.S. District Chief Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV wrote in an order Thursday.

The assault weapons prohibited by the Massachusetts ban are “not suitable for ordinary self-defense purposes, and pose substantial dangers far beyond those inherent in the design of ordinary firearms,” the judge wrote. The Massachusetts law prohibits some semiautomatic weapons and large-capacity magazines. It was passed in 1998 and was made permanent after a similar federal statute expired in 2004, according to the judge’s order.’

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/22/politics/massachusetts-assault-weapons-ban/index.html

“…not suitable for ordinary self-defense purposes…”

True.

And the decision recognizes Bruen and is consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

For those who disagree with the ruling, Judge Saylor isn’t the villain – that would be Thomas and his ‘historical tradition’ test; a ‘test’ that’s flawed, ham-handed, and poorly reasoned.

The Supreme Court told the Libtard assholes that they need to pull their heads out of their asses when it comes to infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms with the Bruen decision but the idiots are hell bent on making their own laws in violation of the Supreme Court ruling.

Libards like this idiot Mass Judge always gets everything wrong and this is no exception.

Liberals neverfollow the Rule of Law if it conflicts with their agenda to turn the US into a Socialist shithole. This ruling by an idiot judge is a great example.

 

[Flash]

This is a great example of the fact that the US has turned into a Banana Republic.

The Supreme Court issued a ruling that the states have to stop infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms but the Leftest assholes in the country simply ignores it.

No rule of law then no Constitutional Republic. Simply a Banana Republic.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

‘A federal judge ruled a Massachusetts ban on assault weapons is consistent with a recent landmark Supreme Court decision that established firearms regulations must be consistent with the nation’s “historical tradition.”

“The relevant history affirms the principle that in 1791, as now, there was a tradition of regulating ‘dangerous and unusual’ weapons – specifically, those that are not reasonably necessary for self-defense,” U.S. District Chief Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV wrote in an order Thursday.

The assault weapons prohibited by the Massachusetts ban are “not suitable for ordinary self-defense purposes, and pose substantial dangers far beyond those inherent in the design of ordinary firearms,” the judge wrote. The Massachusetts law prohibits some semiautomatic weapons and large-capacity magazines. It was passed in 1998 and was made permanent after a similar federal statute expired in 2004, according to the judge’s order.’

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/22/politics/massachusetts-assault-weapons-ban/index.html

“…not suitable for ordinary self-defense purposes…”

True.

And the decision recognizes Bruen and is consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

For those who disagree with the ruling, Judge Saylor isn’t the villain – that would be Thomas and his ‘historical tradition’ test; a ‘test’ that’s flawed, ham-handed, and poorly reasoned.

Text history and tradition says it's going to be overturned and is going to end all bans. You do realize history in context with Buren goes all the way back to 1791. And not recent history 1994

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Reasonable force

Keep hitting until the attacker is down but in your country that isn't reasonable. Does your country train its citizens in hand to hand combat so they'll know what is legally reasonable?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Keep hitting until the attacker is down but in your country that isn't reasonable. Does your country train its citizens in hand to hand combat so they'll know what is legally reasonable?

They've been pacified - you cannot reason with them.