Judge upholds Massachusettes ban on AR15s

[thallub]

The CT and NY gun control laws were upheld at the appellate court level. SCOTUS turned away both cases. SCOTUS also declined the appeal of the MD "assault weapons" ban.

The court’s action underlined its reluctance to insert itself into the simmering national debate on gun control. The Supreme Court issued important rulings in gun cases in 2008 and 2010 but has not taken up a major firearms case since.

The justices declined to hear an appeal of an October ruling by the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld laws prohibiting semiautomatic weapons and large capacity magazines in the two northeastern states.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ge-to-state-assault-weapon-bans-idUSKCN0Z61JE

 

[44 AMP]

what's the old saying?? "power corrupts, and absolute power...is really neat!"

what bothers me is the unabashed double (triple? quadruple??) standard displayed. And the attitude of far too many officials, which is, essentially,

"the law means what I say it means, today..."

Amazing how any argument, even completely opposite arguments are just grist for the mill, as long as the end result is what they want.

And the end result they want is "you can't have it".

For decades we heard the argument that "we can ban X, because the 2nd Amendment only protects militia weapons (military weapons) and "X" isn't a militia weapon, and you (the public) aren't the militia, anyway..."

The Heller decision shot part of that argument in the butt, but only part of it.

Today we hear that "you can't have it because it is a military weapon" or "was designed as a military weapon" along with the supposed justification that we don't "need" it.

So, which is it? And does it matter?

It does matter, but not as much as you might think, in this case, Once again, the focus is aimed at the gun, in this case the AR and everything like it, and NOT on the bigger, underlying issue that the MA Attorney General changed the interpretation of a law, on her own authority, which the AG does not have the legal authority to do, and changed it to suit her personal whim.

The biggest problem I see with the court ruling about the AR is that (from the information available to me) the court DIDN'T say the AG was wrong to do that. The court really only said that the AR (etc.) didn't meet their standard to be a protected arm,

and since its not, in that judge's opinion, something protected by the Founder's intent (via the 2nd Amendment) they don't give a snit what the AG does about them, or HOW...

This is not American jurisprudence at its finest, not by a long shot.

One does wonder, if a public official goes outside their legal authority to change the interpretation of the written law about guns, etc.,(and, gets away with it) what ELSE are they doing and how, when it comes to the rest of things that affect our lives??

When a public official, at any level, gets to rule by personal fiat, and isn't challenged about that, they are thumbing their nose at the very principles that put them in the office they hold, in the first place.

that's not the way representative republics are supposed to work. It's not even the way democracy is supposed to work. Its the way fascism works.

Its good to be king (or in this case, Queen), or Fuehrer, you get what you want, and the laws only apply to the common folk...

That does not, however make it right...

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The CT and NY gun control laws were upheld at the appellate court level. SCOTUS turned away both cases. SCOTUS also declined the appeal of the MD "assault weapons" ban.

Correct. The NY and CT laws and cases were so similar that, IIRC, the two cases were combined at the appellate level and heard together. Again IIRC, what both NY and CT did was to redefine what constitutes an "assault weapon," changing the criteria from a detachable magazine plus one other "evil feature" to just a detachable magazine. So any post-ban configuration AR-15, such as a plain-vanilla basic rifle with just a 10-round magazine and a pistol grip -- no bayonet lug, no flash hider, no telescoping or folding stock -- went from being an ordinary rifle to an evil "assault weapon" at the stroke of the governor's pen. Connecticut allowed people who had post-ban ARs to keep them, but they had to register them with the state police by a certain date. I don't remember if NY had a similar registration scheme.

The noose is tightening. My only AR-15 is a post-ban legal model that was bought while the federal AWB was in force. With these new laws, it would not be legal for me to bring it into Connecticut, New York, Massachusetts, California (of course), and (I think) Maryland. I'm not a 3-gun competitor but, if I were, I don't think it would even be legal for me to bring it into one of those states for a weekend to shoot a match.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

When a public official, at any level, gets to rule by personal fiat, and isn't challenged about that, they are thumbing their nose at the very principles that put them in the office they hold, in the first place.

that's not the way representative republics are supposed to work. It's not even the way democracy is supposed to work. Its the way fascism works.

Too true.

This reminded me that someone mentioned not too long ago that there's a similar situation in Connecticut. I don't have specifics, and it's not just my failing memory. It's a highly technical/legalistic situation, on which apparently two entities within the Connecticut state government don't even agree. It's something about pre-ban (and I don't know if this refers to pre federal AWB or pre Connecticut AWB, both of which happened at about the same time) configuration AR-15s. One side says they're legal, they were always legal, and there's no problem. The other entity just recently came along and said they are NOT legal, they were never legal, and people who possess them are in violation -- and since the registry was closed years ago, they can't even register them now if they wanted to.

It doesn't affect me so I haven't followed it. The two FFLs I know from Connecticut are good guys, but both have given me incorrect information in the past regarding gun laws, so I haven't felt inclined to ask them.

I just found this, which seems to indicate that it's the state police that say pre-bans are legal. But this dates to 2013, which is before the controversy erupted. I can't find anything that tells me who's on the other side, or what the counter-argument is.

 

[LogicMan]

I don't remember if NY had a similar registration scheme.

We do here, but I think it only got like an estimated 20% or 30% compliance.

 

[USAFNoDak]

The Three Legs of the Supreme Court 2nd Amendment Stool.

It appears to me that there are already 3 legs built for the stool to uphold the 2nd Amendment protected RKBA.

1. US vs. Miller has the USSC implying that weapons useful for preserving the efficiency of the militia would have their possession protected by the 2nd A.

2. D.C. vs. Heller has the USSC confirming that the RKBA, protected by the 2nd A., is indeed an individual right, and not a right whose exercise is in anyway connected to one's membership in the militia.

3. The Fourteenth Amendment provides that all of the privileges and rights of "We The People" are bound for protection by the states and local governments, as well as the Congress.

I'm hoping that someday, the USSC would use those 3 legs to stand up for our RKBA, including AR-15's and similar type firearms.

The Judge in Massachusetts took a saw and cut off the US vs. Miller leg. That must now be repaired, somehow, sometime.

 

[USAFNoDak]

From 357 Python:

What will be next? Any centerfire firearm that can hold more than 10 rounds regardless of the magazine. If the gun can hold a box magazine that could hold more than 10 rounds even though there are no such magazines in existence it will eventually be banned.

Yes, because the black market will supply magazines to fit certain types of guns which can accept a box style magazine, and those magazines will be capable of holding more rounds than the specific laws would set as a limit. Unless you can suppress the demand, making the supply illegal will certainly commence the black market to fill in as the supplier.

If there could possibly be box magazines which hold more than 10 rounds for any specific types of firearms, those firearms will be targeted for a ban, sure as shootin'.

 

[ATN082268]

The lower court opinions are taking Scalia's prose and ramming down the throat of the RBKA proponents. You may argue that he didn't mean this or that but that's not the way it's coming down. Heller was a very, very, mixed bag.

So are the lower courts claiming that Heller somehow upholds all current and future gun control restrictions?

 

[USAFNoDak]

Some of the lower courts, and in some case just a singular judge, are declaring that Scalia stated in Heller that any military "style" firearms are subject to being banned and such bans do not run afoul of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[zukiphile]

Some of the lower courts, and in some case just a singular judge, are declaring that Scalia stated in Heller that any military "style" firearms are subject to being banned and such bans do not run afoul of the 2nd Amendment.

That's exactly correct.

Of course, I could declare that USAFNoDak stated that the Ford Pinto was the safest car ever made, but that doesn't mean you actually said it.

 

[dreaming]

What Justice Scalia actually said in Heller was just the opposite.

We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller's phrase "part of ordinary military equipment" could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act's restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller's "ordinary military equipment" language must be read in tandem with what comes after: "[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms "in common use at the time" for lawful purposes like self-defense. "In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same." State v. Kessler, 289 Or. 359, 368, 614 P.2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6-15, 252-254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment's operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.25

This was in retort to Justice Stevens wrong headed argument that SCOTUS had held in Miller, "That the Second Amendment "protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the Legislature's power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons." Yet, the antis continue to insist that the non military use of weapons of war may be regulated even though they clearly, as is the AR-15, be typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.

 

[USAFNoDak]

Of course, I could declare that USAFNoDak stated that the Ford Pinto was the safest car ever made, but that doesn't mean you actually said it.

I would never state such nonsense knowing that the Chevy Corvair claims the title of the safest car ever made!

 

[44 AMP]

The problem we are having with these lower court rulings is because of two things, one resulting from the other. The first thing is the attitude that any, and everything they want to do, to further their agenda, is allowed, legal, and proper, UNLESS specifically and directly prohibited.

Because of that, they are using the "legalese" language used in SCOTUS decisions as their loophole. We read it one way, they read it another, and their reading justifies their bans and restrictions.

In the Miller case, the court essentially prefaced their ruling with the phrase the court "has been shown no evidence"...

This does not mean evidence does not exist, it means the court didn't see it. However, this is taken to mean that there is no evidence, and they proceeded from there...

Likewise, language in the Heller decision spoke to how "other laws regulating.." certain arms were "presumed to be legal". This statement is what is being used to justify current AR bans, etc.

Some people I have spoken with, explained to me how that language does NOT mean what the anti-gunners say it means.

What I have been told the "presumed legal" language means is "court speak" for "since we are not ruling on those laws, today, we will consider them presumed legal, until we do rule on them, specifically".

This is drastically different from what the anti-gun folks are saying, and to date, the high court has not seen fit to rebuke them of otherwise clarify that interpretation.

I am also informed that it is not the job of SCOTUS to do that. Until, and unless they hear a case that requires it.

Not a perfect system, by a long shot, but the one we have to use, faults, flaws and all.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

So are the lower courts claiming that Heller somehow upholds all current and future gun control restrictions?

Basically, yes. They have latched onto the unfortunate "presumptively lawful" description Mr. Scalia hung on existing gun laws that weren't under examination in Heller and they misconstrue that as saying that the SCOTUS has determined that all existing gun controls are constitutional. What it really means is, "That's not under discussion today, so we'll presume that it's legal until it gets examined on its own merits."

But lower and appellate courts are not examining the constitutionality of these other laws, they are using that phrase as a basis to avoid examining them, and to rule that they are lawful because [they say] Heller said so.

 

[Murby]

Wow.. you guys sure know a lot about what's going on with gun control.

Sounds like a lot of infringing to me.....

 

[ATN082268]

Basically, yes. They have latched onto the unfortunate "presumptively lawful" description Mr. Scalia hung on existing gun laws that weren't under examination in Heller and they misconstrue that as saying that the SCOTUS has determined that all existing gun controls are constitutional. What it really means is, "That's not under discussion today, so we'll presume that it's legal until it gets examined on its own merits."

But lower and appellate courts are not examining the constitutionality of these other laws, they are using that phrase as a basis to avoid examining them, and to rule that they are lawful because [they say] Heller said so.

I'm not sure I understand this. I was under the impression that a court only reviews the law brought before it and I'm not sure how a court could automatically rubber stamp all future laws without knowing what they are...