Fed Judge rules MA "assault weapon" ban constitutional.

[AmbulanceDriver]

I haven't read the ruling yet (not my state) but I see similar attempts going through the ballot process here in Oregon....  So I imagine we're going to see this same fight here, and I have no faith that the 9th Circuit Circus Court wouldn't rule similarly. 

Here's one news source I found on it: http://www.abc27.com/news/us-world/judge-assault-weapons-ban-doesnt-violate-2nd-amendment-1/1104697308

One interesting tidbit from the ruling is that the judge considers "assault weapons" military firearms and therefore beyond the reach of 2A.   Personally, I think that's a line of reasoning that's ripe for overturning on appeal.  But then I've always been rather short sighted in my ability to twist my reasoning around to the point of misreading plain and simple English, so who knows....

[Pb]

Sad.  The Second Ammendment was specifically written to protect military firearms.

"The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans."

Tench Coxe
Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

[Pb]

Another thing- I'd like to hear what kind of gun these jackass "judges" think actually is protected... 

Why do these aholes think the Second Amendment was written?

[PEfarmer]

Re Oregon, both IP43 and IP44 are seriously bad news, and unfortunately, I can see them getting traction.  They expose the internal debate I have with law by initiative:  On one side, you have a legislature, that even while being extraordinarily leftist, is still exposed to the realities of wanting to be reelected.  This has the effect of watering down some of the more draconian stuff like what's seen in IP43 (our proposed assualt weapons ban for the non-Oregon types)  On the other hand, with the initiative process, we get a direct say in the matter.  The bottom line, IMHO is that the Oregon voting populace is so far over the edge that the loony stuff that the legislature might blanch at has a very good chance at passing by initiative.  One additional note:  The registration provisions in IP43 give me a glimpse of "Unintended Consequences" when our protagonist is debating which guns to "lose in a horrible boating accident" and which to register.  Bad stuff all around.

[dogmush]

I think they might have more issues with these quotes:

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.”
....

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.

and

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,
the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and
tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited
the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right.

The handgun ban amounts to a
prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly
chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.
The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the
need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute.
Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied
to enumerated constitutional rights,27 banning from
the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to
‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,”
478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster.

I'd like to see a credible argument that AR-15's and their variants are not in common use for lawful purposes in the United States.  Or that they are not the most common long gun kept for home defense.

[Pb]

The Jackass Judge Young said, direct quote: "“AR-15′s present day popularity is not constitutionally material” despite this directly contradicting the selection you posted from Heller v DC.

[MillCreek]

What PEFarmer said also applies to Washington state.

[Ben]

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.”

Heck, one could argue that the weapons used "in defense of person and home" were superior/ more advanced than the military arms of the time. Certainly the smoothbore muskets of the Continental Army could be reloaded faster, but the long rifle, with its range and accuracy, could be argued to be one of the deciding factors in us winning that war.

[TommyGunn]

My dictionary defines "infringe" as "to intrude upon, or into," or "to diminish." 
Does anyone know where judges and politicians get their definitions from?   

[Pb]

It would be nice if the Supreme Court would do its job and overturn these decisions that crap all over what the said in Heller v DC.   

[Hawkmoon]

One interesting tidbit from the ruling is that the judge considers "assault weapons" military firearms and therefore beyond the reach of 2A.   Personally, I think that's a line of reasoning that's ripe for overturning on appeal.  But then I've always been rather short sighted in my ability to twist my reasoning around to the point of misreading plain and simple English, so who knows....

Appeals already failed for both New York and Connecticut. Same problem -- ignorant judge didn't know anything about guns, and didn't want to learn.

Unfortunately, the majority of federal judges on the East Coast seem to be card-carrying liberals. This is why it's important to get out the vote for Republican candidates in November. Trump has 2-1/2 years left to nominate more conservative judges, and it's important to put in place enough support to confirm his nominations.

[RoadKingLarry]

My dictionary defines "infringe" as "to intrude upon, or into," or "to diminish." 
Does anyone know where judges and politicians get their definitions from?   

In my opinion, liberal judges generally just pull whatever *expletive deleted*it they want out of their ass that they can use to fit their bias and advance their narrative.

[grampster]

Judges should be term limited.

[French G.]

Also contradicts Miller since the case that got us the NFA ruled against him since a SBS was not a military arm, even though now it is.

[Hawkmoon]

Unfortunately, the majority of federal judges on the East Coast seem to be card-carrying liberals. This is why it's important to get out the vote for Republican candidates in November. Trump has 2-1/2 years left to nominate more conservative judges, and it's important to put in place enough support to confirm his nominations.

Is it okay to quote my own post? I just came across an article that I think supports my suggestion that we need to put aside lower-priority differences at the mid-terms and just focus on electing pro-gun, pro-freedom Republicans.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/382028-retiring-gop-lawmakers-cut-loose-on-trump?rnd=1523180277

These retiring Republicans are a big part of the reason why Trump hasn't been able to deliver on many of his campaign promises. The established Republicans are so busy kvetching about Trump that they can't (or won't) see that there was a reason why Trump got elected, and one of their insider RINOs didn't make the cut.

They don't even know what's important.

But since his retirement announcement last week, Costello has unloaded on Trump in a series of interviews in the media, saying he believes Trump had an extramarital affair with adult-film actress Stormy Daniels and criticizing the president for threatening to veto a government spending bill.

“I think she is,” Costello replied after MSNBC’s Katy Tur asked if he believed Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, is telling the truth.

To borrow a phrase from Hillary, "What difference, at this point, does it make?" Seriously. Staunch Democrats FDR and JFK both had dalliances while they were President, and nobody made a big deal about it. Whether or not Trump had an affair with Stormy Daniels, it doesn't matter to his presidency, unless he commits perjury over it. If it happened, it was long before he even announced as a candidate. It has nothing to do with his presidency. WHO CARES?

Why do they feel constrained to respond to every tweet Trump makes? It just proves that Trump owns them -- he got inside their heads. What's going to be critical is to ensure that all those Republican seats go to new Republican candidates -- candidates who recognize the mandate that brought Trump into office, and who will help him deliver.