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

[LibertyKid]

‘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.

As I have pointed out before, personal protection and self defense should not be the tantamount defense and argument for the 2A and our constitutional right to bear arms. The primary purpose of the 2A is for the people to be able to remove a gov't that is no longer serving the people. Self defense is a natural bi-product of our right to bear arms.

Any argument that bans the ability for the American citizenry to defend against a tyrannical gov't is counter to the constitution and is tyrannical.

 

[LibertyKid]

There is no difference between a weapon carried by a law enforcement officer, and a weapon carried by an American citizen. Police officers don't carry weapons to protect you, they carry them to protect themselves. And a US Court of Appeals ruled in Warren vs. District of Columbia that law enforcement officers have no duty to protect. Therefore, granted by the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, American citizens have no less of right to use deadly force to protect themselves, than do law enforcement officers.

Warren v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia

This is absolutely correct. In taking my CCW training, it is emphasized that we are not legally obligated to defend and or protect anyone else if we are carrying that day. What I liked most about my CCW training is how they focused, the majority of the time, on the legalities of using a firearm. It makes one think twice before carrying and makes me even more aware of situations that I "Don't" want to be involved in.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

‘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.

Sure to be overturned on appeal

 

[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 it is unreasonable to shoot him?

 

[jbrownson0831]

‘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.

Do you ever tell the truth Mrs. Jones?

 

[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 it is unreasonable to shoot him?

 

[Flash]

This is absolutely correct. In taking my CCW training, it is emphasized that we are not legally obligated to defend and or protect anyone else if we are carrying that day. What I liked most about my CCW training is how they focused, the majority of the time, on the legalities of using a firearm. It makes one think twice before carrying and makes me even more aware of situations that I "Don't" want to be involved in.

I have taught CCW classes. One of the things I emphasized is that the time you decide to shoot somebody will be a life changing event. Even if you are 100% justified you will play hell proving it the police and prosecutor. Heaven help you if the assailant is a minority and the prosecutor is a Democrat. They will be looking to find something wrong in your account and if there is any doubt whatsoever you could get charged with murder, manslaughter or assault. You may win in the long run but it may cost you $100K in legal fees.

Just look at the George Zimmerman case as an example. He was justified in using his weapon in self defense but he went through hell proving it.

As someone that carries frequently I would have no problem with using my carry weapon if needed to protect myself or my family. I just hope that if that time ever came I would be 100% justified and not just reacting to adrenaline.

Training is the key to making the right decisions. Unfortunately too many people carry that really don't how to handle a firearm or what to do in in a situation. I see it all the time as a firearm instructor.

 

[2aguy]

I have taught CCW classes. One of the things I emphasized is that the time you decide to shoot somebody will be a life changing event. Even if you are 100% justified you will play hell proving it the police and prosecutor. Heaven help you if the assailant is a minority and the prosecutor is a Democrat. They will be looking to find something wrong in your account and if there is any doubt whatsoever you could get charged with murder, manslaughter or assault. You may win in the long run but it may cost you $100K in legal fees.

Just look at the George Zimmerman case as an example. He was justified in using his weapon in self defense but he went through hell proving it.

As someone that carries frequently I would have no problem with using my carry weapon if needed to protect myself or my family. I just hope that if that time ever came I would be 100% justified and not just reacting to adrenaline.

Training is the key to making the right decisions. Unfortunately too many people carry that really don't how to handle a firearm or what to do in in a situation. I see it all the time as a firearm instructor.

And they will crush you economically if you dont have concealed carry insurance.........there are a couple of companies that have this and have lists of lawyers at the ready if you are arrested...something to look into if you carry a gun for self defense, it could mean the difference between losing or keeping your home ...

 

[Flash]

And they will crush you economically if you dont have concealed carry insurance.........there are a couple of companies that have this and have lists of lawyers at the ready if you are arrested...something to look into if you carry a gun for self defense, it could mean the difference between losing or keeping your home ...

Absolutely!

The "mababydindunutin" crowd will get a sleazy lawyer and they can take you to the cleaners. Especially if the jury is made up mostly of the mababydindunutin demographics.

 

[LibertyKid]

And they will crush you economically if you dont have concealed carry insurance.........there are a couple of companies that have this and have lists of lawyers at the ready if you are arrested...something to look into if you carry a gun for self defense, it could mean the difference between losing or keeping your home ...

CCW Insurance, if you peruse Youtube, I'm seeing a lot of criticism regarding USCCA and their handling or lack of handling cases for members. One needs to read and fully understand the fine print on exclusions and when the legal entity can legally refuse their case.

 

[Libby von H]

‘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.

You make gross mistakes of reasoning and fact in both your appraisal of the court ruling and of the Thomas reasoning.

1) There are already bans on weapons, you can't own a nuclear missile, the ruling was about where the line is and not whether there is a line and certainly not in contradistinction to the Founders, who had rules about ships of marque

2) I doubt you have ever read Thomas because it is a core principle of his is that Feds do not approve or disapprove a law they only pass on its constitutionality.

So you made two grievous errors , learn a lesson

 

[westwall]

CCW Insurance, if you peruse Youtube, I'm seeing a lot of criticism regarding USCCA and their handling or lack of handling cases for members. One needs to read and fully understand the fine print on exclusions and when the legal entity can legally refuse their case.

I use CCW Safe. They are probably the best one out there.

 

[Grau]

This is absolutely correct. In taking my CCW training, it is emphasized that we are not legally obligated to defend and or protect anyone else if we are carrying that day. What I liked most about my CCW training is how they focused, the majority of the time, on the legalities of using a firearm. It makes one think twice before carrying and makes me even more aware of situations that I "Don't" want to be involved in.

I have a CCW and reluctantly bring my pistol with me not because I expect a shoot out but because I recently hit a deer and had no way to put it out of its misery.
Fortunately, someone with a pistol soon showed up, I stopped the traffic and he shot the wounded deer.
Now that I no longer live and work in a high crime inner city neighborhood, I mainly carry so that I am prepared in case of another animal vs auto collision.

Thanks,

 

[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?

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

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

Is it reasonable to tell a 5' tall woman, who weighs 100 pounds to get into a knife fight with a male attacker that's twice her size?

If course it isn't reasonable. It's fucking stupid. Only a moron would think that's a good idea...lol

 

[M14 Shooter]

Only a moron would think that's a good idea...lol

Says it all right there.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

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.

Thankfully I live in an area that self defense doesn't have to be proportional. If you come at me or mine with the intention to harm you are as good as dead.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Is it reasonable to tell a 5' tall woman, who weighs 100 pounds to get into a knife fight with a male attacker that's twice her size?

If course it isn't reasonable. It's fucking stupid. Only a moron would think that's a good idea...lol

It's not a good idea for anyone.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Thankfully I live in an area that self defense doesn't have to be proportional. If you come at me or mine with the intention to harm you are as good as dead.

That's why you are personally unsuitable and dangerous in being near guns. Your mentality is detrimental to a safe gun culture, hence why America suffers catastrophic gun crime and deaths. And you're STUPID enough to believe you're the good guy. You can't get any more stupid than that.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

That's why you are personally unsuitable and dangerous in being near guns. Your mentality is detrimental to a safe gun culture, hence why America suffers catastrophic gun crime and deaths. And you're STUPID enough to believe you're the good guy. You can't get any more stupid than that.

Nah dumbass I've owned firearms for over 40 years and served in the military. I know more about firearm safety than morons like you will ever know and I have a right to self-defense.