Appeals court rejects challenge to Massachusetts assault weapons ban

"A federal appeals court has rejected a challenge to the assault weapons ban in Massachusetts, in what Attorney General Maura Healey called a 'defeat for the gun lobby.'....

“ 'This case concerns an issue of paramount importance,' read Friday’s ruling. 'In the wake of increasingly frequent acts of mass violence committed with semiautomatic assault weapons and [large-capacity magazines], the interests of state and local governments in regulating the possession and use of such weapons are entitled to great weight.'....

" 'Once again, the courts have agreed that the people of Massachusetts have the right to protect themselves, their communities, and their schools by banning these deadly weapons. Today’s decision by the First Circuit is a defeat for the gun lobby and a victory for families across the nation,' she said."
https://www2.bostonglobe.com/metro/...weapons-ban/tpZaG7DfTmrHcaitDOwZzN/story.html

The court recognized that the right of the people to protect their communities from gun violence can be taken into consideration when evaluating the constitutionality of a gun control law. Assault weapons bans have been upheld in Maryland and California too.

 

From the ruling:

"We have said before, and today reaffirm, that 'few interests are more central to a state government than protecting the safety and well-being of its citizens.'....

"The record contains ample evidence of the unique dangers posed by the proscribed weapons. Semiautomatic assault weapons permit a shooter to fire multiple rounds very quickly, allowing him to hit more victims in a shorter period of time. LCMs [large capacity magazines] exacerbate this danger, allowing the shooter to fire more bullets without stopping to reload... It is, therefore, not surprising that AR-15s equipped with LCMs have been the weapons of choice in many of the deadliest mass shootings in recent history, including horrific events in Pittsburgh (2018 ), Parkland (2018 ), Las Vegas (2017), Sutherland Springs (2017), Orlando (2016), Newtown (2012), and Aurora (2012).

"The record also contains the affidavit of a seasoned trauma surgeon, who has treated victims of several mass shootings. This affidavit confirms what common sense suggests: semiautomatic assault weapons cause wounds that 'tend to be higher in complexity with higher complication rates than those injuries from nonassault weapons. They tend to cause far greater damage to the muscles, bones, soft tissue, and vital organs.'....

"In the wake of increasingly frequent acts of mass violence committed with semiautomatic assault weapons and LCMs, the interests of state and local governments in regulating the possession and use of such weapons are entitled to great weight. Even so, we recognize that such interests must be balanced against the time-honored right of individuals to bear arms in self-defense — a right that is protected in varying degrees by the Second Amendment.

"Holding this delicate balance steady and true is difficult but necessary work. Here, we find that even if the Act implicates the core of the Second Amendment right, it (at most) minimally burdens that right. Consequently, we are obliged to cede some degree of deference to the decision of the Massachusetts legislature about how best to regulate the possession and use of the proscribed weapons."
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/18-1545P-01A.pdf

 

yep, another inferior court taking a Dump on the Heller/McDonald rulings. Such judges need to be impeached

 

Shouldn't the government be able to regulate weaponry which so clearly endangers innocent lives and which serves no practical purpose?

 

According to all available information, handguns are overwhelmingly the firearm used in most killings in the united states, be they mass shootings or other types. Yet under the established and legally binding precedent set forth by the united state supreme court in the Heller ruling neither the federal nor state governments possess the legal authority to prohibit the private ownership of handguns, no matter how many individuals they are used to murder annually. Therefore the answer to the question being presented on the part of yourself is no.

If the government cannot regulate the type of firearm most commonly used for the purpose of committing murders, then it does not possess the legal authority to regulate the type of firearms least used for the purpose of committing murders. If the government cannot prohibit the legal ownership of a common handgun, it cannot prohibit the legal ownership of an AR-15 or other similar rifles. It is that simple.

 

The only thing to be garnered from the above is that yet one more lower court has chosen to ignore the legally binding precedent set forth by the Heller ruling, which stated in absolute terms that the second amendment applies to all implements that constitute bearable arms, and are used for legal purposes. The AR-15 is just such an arm, and qualifies for constitutional protection against such infringement. The lower court refusing to recognize such does not change these facts.

The simple fact the majority of the millions of AR-15s in private circulation are not used in the commission of crimes, but rather legitimate purposes, demonstrates the fact that they are in common use.

 

I think the 1st Circuit Court's basic argument is that an assault weapons ban does not significantly infringe on the RKBA. Heller said that the purpose of the right was self defense. Heller singled out handguns for being useful for self defense but not assault weapons. You don't need an assault weapon to defend yourself. Furthermore, the 1st Circuit Court argues that the RKBA must be balanced against other interests such as protecting public safety. I don't agree with Heller, but it's obvious to me that the 1st Circuit Court reached the conclusion it did because it was following Heller.

 

None of such weaponry "clearly endangers innocent lives" in and of themselves, and they serve a VERY practical purpose.

Bull. This is yet another example of the courts ignoring the obvious and clear intent of the Constitution to protect governmental overreach instead of people's constitutional rights.

Who the F are you to tell me what I "need" to defend myself, my family, and my home? Another gun hater who is incapable of comprehending the utility and effectiveness a tactical carbine brings to defensive applications?

 

'Protect themselves by banning weapons'

...

 

First and foremost, does a lower court have the legal authority to overrule the united state supreme court?

Second, the term "assault weapon" has been expanded and redefined so much since the period of its inception, that the term is largely meaningless and vague enough to mean almost anything. Even standard handguns qualify as so-called "assault weapons" if they possess a threaded muzzle. Therefore the basic argument is factually incorrect.

Factually incorrect. Heller specified legal purposes, such as self defense within the home. The "such as" means the cited example is merely a single example, it does not mean the only legal purpose of firearms is self defense within the home.

Again factually incorrect. Heller pertained to handguns exclusively because the district of columbia maintained an absolute prohibition on handgun ownership. The united state supreme court could not legally address matters that were not at issue in the lawsuit, and thus outside of the scope of what it was asked to settle.

The standard of "need" has neither bearing nor relevance on the scope of constitutional rights. One does not "need" legal council unless they are accused of a crime, but they are allowed to have it regardless.

The united state supreme court ruled in Heller, in absolute terms, that the second amendment was not subject to a judicial interest balancing approach to determining the scope of its protection, where it would be weighed against vague and poorly defined standards such as "public safety" whatever that may amount to. The court ruled that any such approach would render the protections of the second amendment meaningless.

Furthermore, firearms such as the AR-15 are among the least used firearms in the commission of crimes, whereas handguns are the most commonly used type of firearms in all killings, even mass killings. The district of columbia claimed their total prohibition on handgun ownership was necessary to protect public safety, but the united state supreme court still ruled against it and stated such was not a good enough argument.

If the legal ownership of handguns cannot be restricted and/or prohibited to protect public safety, the same approach cannot be implemented for any other firearms available for legal ownership. The matter is that simple.

 

No

 

So you're against the Tenth Amendment. Noted.

 

The 1st Circuit Court had serious doubts about whether assault weapons pass Heller's common use test:

"Viewed against this backdrop, the relevant question is neither whether the proscribed weapons were commonly used at the time of ratification nor whether they are among the types of weapons used by today's militias. Instead, the question is whether the proscribed weapons are in common use for lawful purposes like self-defense.... the defendants have shown that only three percent of guns in the United States are assault weapons and only one percent of Americans own such a weapon. In all events, the record evidence is sparse as to actual use of any of the proscribed weapons or LCMs for self-defense in the home."
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/18-1545P-01A.pdf

 

This could work out very well for the pro-gunners as it opens a path to appealing the ruling to the USSC and giving the current makeup of that court, this case could result in the USSC overruling it, which widely opens the door to eliminating such bans in other states.

 

So what part of this protects someone from violence?

 

Why do you need an AR-15?

 

That depends on what one is going up against.

 

It hasn't worked out well for your side in the past.

"Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Assault Rifles Used in Las Vegas and Texas Shootings"
https://www.newsweek.com/supreme-court-upholds-assault-weapon-gun-ban-723464

 

I guess you dont realize the USSC has changed quite a bit recently and if Ginsberg kicks the bucket you will see even more changes in the USSC, changes that will be favorable to the Constitution and as such the Second.

 

The 10th amendment does not supercede the 9th or 2nd or 5th or 14th amendments.

Additionally: You've yet to show that any of the objects mentioned serve no practical purpose or so clearly "endanger innocent lives" by simple possession.

 

The phrase "the government" suggests the united states federal government itself, whereas the tenth amendment applied to individual states.

That matter aside, the individual states cannot legally utilize the tenth amendment as a legal justification for violating the established rights of the united states constitution, to which all states are legally bound. The tenth amendment is not legal permission for a particular state to prohibit a legal exercising of the second amendment.

 

Does the first circuit court of appeals possess the legal authority to overrule and overturn the legally binding precedent of the united state supreme court?

Except the united state supreme court did not specify that constitutional protection did not apply to firearms based solely on their suitability for the use of self defense within the home. Rather it used self defense within the home as example of what constituted the legal use of a firearm.

Simple legal ownership of a firearm is sufficient grounds to qualify as the firearm being in common use for legitimate purposes, as ownership is a use for a firearm.

 

Explain precisely why absolutely no individual in the united states could possibly possess a legitimate need or use for firearms such as the AR-15.

 

Such pertained exclusively to the makeup of the united state supreme court before the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh. That makeup is now nonexistent and the opinion it held is invalid.

Furthermore, the united state supreme court itself has stated, in outright and explicit terms, that it denying an appeal does not mean they agree with the merits of the ruling, or otherwise believe it is valid.

 

The flippant answer would be that it's none of your business; that I have the right to possess whatever firearm I want, regardless of whether you are squeamish about that or not.

The fact is that no firearm available today is as versatile or capable in contributing to the long-term survivability and combat effectiveness of its user. The AR-15 and similar firearms are the pinnacle of effectiveness as defensive/tactical weapons; to say nothing of being indispensable as arms for the purpose of deterrence against authoritarianism and tyranny.