Federal Judge Upholds Massachusetts 'Assault Weapon' Ban

A federal judge upheld Massachusetts' ban on firearms labeled to be "assault weapons."

Boston, MA – A lawsuit that challenged Massachusetts’ ban on firearms determined to be “assault weapons” was dismissed by a federal judge on Friday.

The federal lawsuit, filed by the Gun Owners Action League of Massachusetts (GOAL) in 2017, alleged that the ban violated citizens’ Second Amendment rights, the Associated Press reported.

In his 47-page decision, U.S. District Judge William Young determined that the weapons and magazines banned by state law in 1998 were “not within the scope of the right to ‘bear Arms’ under the Second Amendment,” according to The Hill.

Young, a President Reagan nominee, argued that military-style rifles were “designed and intended to be particularly suitable for combat rather than sporting applications,” and that the state had rightfully issued the ban through elected representatives.

“Other states are equally free to leave them unregulated and available to their law-abiding citizens,” the judge continued. “These policy matters are simply not of constitutional moment.”

The Massachusetts ban mirrored the federal ban that expired in 2004, the Associated Press reported.

Young also upheld Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey’s 2016 “copycat weapon” enforcement order, which clarified which weapons were illegal to copy or duplicate.

In the lawsuit, GOAL argued that Healey’s order retroactively criminalized the possession and sale of “tens of thousands” of firearms, which were legal at the time they were purchased, Universal Hub reported.

According to Young, because the enforcement order has not yet become a final state regulation, and because the state has said they do not intend to prosecute people who purchased the weapons prior to the order, the issue was not “ripe” for further consideration by the court, according to Universal Hub.

Healey praised Young’s decision, and announced that the ruling "vindicates the right of the people of Massachusetts to protect themselves from these weapons of war,” the Associated Press reported.

"Families across the country should take heart in this victory," she added.

Comments
No. 1-14
bronx163
bronx163

Nra and all these pro gun orgs are taking wrong approach. Should sue based on 2nd amendment and right of the people to bear arms, because the people make up the militia. Go back to civil war 80 percent of union soldiers
Were volanteers and from state militias.
Thats where everything is done wrong. These are the grounds the nra and others need to write the briefs not just 2nd amendment.
People make up the militia. Therfore have the right to have m4’s -m16- and so on.
People are firsts and last line of defense when foreign power decides to land on out shores. Eapecially with chinese putting 40 ship battle group underway and carrier groups too.
And building 2 other carriers now in drydock.
China and india will be the new superpowers of the 21 century and on.

angryAmerican
angryAmerican

I don't have his 47 page drivel answer to this drama, but it seems pretty simple to me. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!! The 2nd Amendment was born on the heels of the war that won our freedom from a tyrannical government, which is spelled out in the 2A as reason for our right! This puke posing as an authority on Constitutional Law should step down if he can't read the Constitution anymore or is obstructed by any other means from doing his job. I did hear that he said the courts were NOT the place to decide these things, it should be the legislatures! WRONG! The courts are the barriers against Constitutionally incorrect legislation, but only if the "judge" understands the Constitution and the Framers intent! They did make it very clear through other articles and writings!

bronx163
bronx163

Love how lib judges tell us what our rights are in their opinion. Its clearly says right to bear arms does not say rightvto bear arms in a house. And to have a free state.
But antifa can go around inciting riots take over highways. Thats fine under first amendment.

bronx163
bronx163

Such bs

BobIn704
BobIn704

Exactly Brox163.......a lot of what these folks do are in fact not legal, and they hope not to be challenged, but at the end of the day 1) its not law yet 2) most likely wont PASS law 3) hes a dick! :)