http://www.bostonherald.com/news/local_regional/regs10032000.htm
Fed judge upholds state ban on shooting at human image
by Andrea Estes
Tuesday, October 3, 2000
A federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit brought by gun owners who said a state
law banning target practice on human images violates their rights.
In a terse, two-page opinion issued Sept. 28, U.S. District Court Judge George
O'Toole dismissed the challenge of the Massachusetts Gun Control Act of 1998,
brought by the Gun Owners Action League and other pro-gun groups.
The assault weapons law, which went into effect in October of 1998, also bans
certain guns, requires new permits and registration and boosts penalties for
commiting crimes with guns.
``We're disappointed that the right to freedom of expression of law-abiding
firearm owners would be given such short shrift,'' said Stephen Halbrook, the Gun
Owners Action League's lawyer.
According to Halbrook, many gun owners like to shoot at targets bearing famous
faces - Adolph Hitler's in particular.
``We made an argument that this is a political expression - it expresses a political
viewpoint,'' Halbrook said. ``If the First Amendment right to free speech protects
burning the American flag, then it should protect shooting at a picture of Adolph
Hitler.''
Assistant Attorney General Edward DeAngelo, who represented the governor,
attorney general and state police, had argued the only reason gun owners use
targets shaped like humans is to practice shooting at people.
In addition, DeAngelo argued, the restriction applies only to gun clubs looking for a
special license. With the license, gun enthusiasts, even those without a permit, can
practice at the club with semiautomatics and assault weapons.
O'Toole also rejected GOAL's claims that the law's listing of specific assault
weapons that require special permits was too vague.
Halbrook had argued that some owners may be carrying the weapons without
even knowing it.
``Here we have a law that has harsh felony penalties for violation and there's no
requirement that the state has to prove you even knew the nature of what you
possessed - namely, that it was a so-called large capacity or assault weapon,''
said Halbrook.
DeAngelo couldn't be reached for comment yesterday.
Sen. Cheryl Jacques (D-Needham), the bill's chief Senate sponsor, called the
ruling ``a clear signal to the gun lobby that these common-sense gun control laws
are here to stay.
``This law succeeded in the court of public opinion. It succeeded in the Great and
General Court. It succeeded in the Mass. state courts and it has now succeeded in
the federal court.''
GOAL may appeal the decision, Halbrook said.
------------------
~USP
"[Even if there would be] few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard, this would simply show that the Founders were right when they feared that some future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may tolerate the abridgement of property rights and the elimination of a right to bear arms; but we should not pretend that these are not reductions of rights." -- Justice Scalia 1998
Fed judge upholds state ban on shooting at human image
by Andrea Estes
Tuesday, October 3, 2000
A federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit brought by gun owners who said a state
law banning target practice on human images violates their rights.
In a terse, two-page opinion issued Sept. 28, U.S. District Court Judge George
O'Toole dismissed the challenge of the Massachusetts Gun Control Act of 1998,
brought by the Gun Owners Action League and other pro-gun groups.
The assault weapons law, which went into effect in October of 1998, also bans
certain guns, requires new permits and registration and boosts penalties for
commiting crimes with guns.
``We're disappointed that the right to freedom of expression of law-abiding
firearm owners would be given such short shrift,'' said Stephen Halbrook, the Gun
Owners Action League's lawyer.
According to Halbrook, many gun owners like to shoot at targets bearing famous
faces - Adolph Hitler's in particular.
``We made an argument that this is a political expression - it expresses a political
viewpoint,'' Halbrook said. ``If the First Amendment right to free speech protects
burning the American flag, then it should protect shooting at a picture of Adolph
Hitler.''
Assistant Attorney General Edward DeAngelo, who represented the governor,
attorney general and state police, had argued the only reason gun owners use
targets shaped like humans is to practice shooting at people.
In addition, DeAngelo argued, the restriction applies only to gun clubs looking for a
special license. With the license, gun enthusiasts, even those without a permit, can
practice at the club with semiautomatics and assault weapons.
O'Toole also rejected GOAL's claims that the law's listing of specific assault
weapons that require special permits was too vague.
Halbrook had argued that some owners may be carrying the weapons without
even knowing it.
``Here we have a law that has harsh felony penalties for violation and there's no
requirement that the state has to prove you even knew the nature of what you
possessed - namely, that it was a so-called large capacity or assault weapon,''
said Halbrook.
DeAngelo couldn't be reached for comment yesterday.
Sen. Cheryl Jacques (D-Needham), the bill's chief Senate sponsor, called the
ruling ``a clear signal to the gun lobby that these common-sense gun control laws
are here to stay.
``This law succeeded in the court of public opinion. It succeeded in the Great and
General Court. It succeeded in the Mass. state courts and it has now succeeded in
the federal court.''
GOAL may appeal the decision, Halbrook said.
------------------
~USP
"[Even if there would be] few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard, this would simply show that the Founders were right when they feared that some future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may tolerate the abridgement of property rights and the elimination of a right to bear arms; but we should not pretend that these are not reductions of rights." -- Justice Scalia 1998
