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

[bigrebnc1775]

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

I would ask what is reasonable. I bet neither of us will give the same definition

 

[westwall]

Reasonable force

No such thing. Someone breaks into my house and I will use all of the force necessary to remove them. My goal is to harm them, without myself being harmed.

The only way to do that is to apply as much force as possible, as quickly as possible, against them.

If they are wounded or killed is not my concern.

They CHOSE to invade my home. Thus, whatever harm comes to them, is on THEIR head. Not mine.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Reasonable force

thanks captain jones....

 

[M14 Shooter]

The only way to do that is to apply as much force as possible, as quickly as possible, against them.

Indeed.
The longer the threat remains a threat, the more likely it is you will be injured or killed.

 

[Flash]

“The relevant history affirms the principle that in 1791, as now, there was a tradition of regulating ‘dangerous and unusual’ weapons – s

Idiot judge. An AR15 is not a "dangerous and unusual weapon.

It is used for non dangerous recreational shooting literally thousands of times each day. As far as being "unusual"? That is a laugh. The AR is the most popular rifle sold in the US. The rifle has been in civilian hands for almost 70s years now with relatively few crimes committed with them. According to the Miller decision they fit nicely into the "common use" definition.

The Judge has an anti right to keep and bear arms agenda and he went bat shit crazy to justify that vile agenda.

These stupid ignorant Libtards need to be careful what they ask for. Right now the assholes are getting away with their oppressive anti Constitutional laws. If it gets kicked up to the Supremes they won't like the answer they get and everything will be thrown out the window.

Of course when you live in a Banana Republic like what has been created by the Democrats then laws don't mean jackshit, do they?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I would ask what is reasonable. I bet neither of us will give the same definition

Specifically, no.
Generally, yes.
Shoot until you stop the threat.

 

[Natural Citizen]

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

True.

If these several, well trained men who were sent by the government with guns needed that many rounds to kill this "threat,'' then why shouldn't someone's wife or mother or anyone else not have the same opportunity?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Idiot judge. An AR15 is not a "dangerous and unusual weapon.

2023:
Of the more than 20,000,000 AR15s in the US, 6 were used in mass shootings to kill 42 people.
Thus:
"In common use".
Not "dangerous and unusual".

 

[Flash]

If I was a selfish person I would like for the ban to continue in Mass.

Mass has an exemption to the ban on ARs if the weapon is a Pre Ban, meaning was in existence prior to 1994.

A normal AR lower receiver will sell for about $70 nowadays. However, if you have a pre ban you can get $1000 for it in Mass.

I have several pre ban lower receivers. If I wanted to sell them to somebody in Mass I could make good money.

However, I would much rather have Liberty for the people of Mass than a few bucks so I hope the Supremes do the right thing and overturn this idiot judge.

 

[Captain Caveman]

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?

Reasonable force in the situation. Anyone is welcome to join a combat club if they wish. Most areas have, judo, karate etc.. clubs

 

[westwall]

Reasonable force in the situation. Anyone is welcome to join a combat club if they wish. Most areas have, judo, karate etc.. clubs

I'm 80. A 23 year old asshole outweighs me by 100 pounds, and is on drugs.

What constitutes "reasonable force?"

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm 80. A 23 year old asshole outweighs me by 100 pounds, and is on drugs.
What constitutes "reasonable force?"

DP-12. Buck and slugs.

 

[westwall]

DP-12. Buck and slugs.

I actually opt for high base #6 bird shot. At that close range I remove whatever I hit.

 

[Flash]

I would ask what is reasonable. I bet neither of us will give the same definition

Never trust a Liberal with the definition of reasonable. They will always get it wrong.

 

[Flash]

Reasonable force in the situation. Anyone is welcome to join a combat club if they wish. Most areas have, judo, karate etc.. clubs

"Reasonable force" is if you fuck with me you will find out.

 

[Captain Caveman]

"Reasonable force" is if you fuck with me you will find out.

So for example, the perpetrator(is) are running away, so no force required, shooting at them is not reasonable. The perpetrator comes at you with a knife, so you pick up a knife to defend yourself, that's reasonable. If they attack you home with a gun, you get yours out of the cabinet and you warn them, but he/she/they continue to attack and shoot, and you shoot back, than that's reasonable.

And your statement proves that you're an unsuitable gun owner, and are just as idiotic as the "bad guy"/ criminal.

 

[westwall]

So for example, the perpetrator(is) are running away, so no force required, shooting at them is not reasonable. The perpetrator comes at you with a knife, so you pick up a knife to defend yourself, that's reasonable. If they attack you home with a gun, you get yours out of the cabinet and you warn them, but he/she/they continue to attack and shoot, and you shoot back, than that's reasonable.

And your statement proves that you're an unsuitable gun owner, and are just as idiotic as the "bad guy"/ criminal.

So, a 280 pound body builder decides to rape a 90 pound woman. What is reasonable force for her?

Enquiring minds want to know.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The perpetrator comes at you with a knife, so you pick up a knife to defend yourself, that's reasonable.

If I do not have a knife, but I do have a gun, how is it unreasonable to shoot them?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So for example, the perpetrator(is) are running away, so no force required, shooting at them is not reasonable. The perpetrator comes at you with a knife, so you pick up a knife to defend yourself, that's reasonable. If they attack you home with a gun, you get yours out of the cabinet and you warn them, but he/she/they continue to attack and shoot, and you shoot back, than that's reasonable.

And your statement proves that you're an unsuitable gun owner, and are just as idiotic as the "bad guy"/ criminal.

Running away to get a better advantage to continue the attack

 

[marvin martian]

‘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.

SCOTUS is going to be busy in 2024 smacking down little Hitlers like you.