Federal Judge Exerts Personal Judicial Tyranny in MA Semi-auto Ban Lawsuit Dismissal
“The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional rights to ‘bear arms,” U.S. District Judge William Young wrote in a decision Thursday in Boston, dismissing a lawsuit over Massachusetts’ so-called “assault weapon” ban.
“There was no due process, no public input, no members of the legislature debated the issue and the governor never signed it into law,” Gun Owners Action League had noted in its lawsuit announcement. “Licensed gun owners are now threatened with a ten-year felony charge for owning firearms that were legal the day before her announcement. Hundreds of thousands of these firearms were legally bought and sold for over two decades, and they became illegal overnight. Since 1994, these firearms have been recognized by state and federal law as legal to possess, own, and sell.”
“These are weapons of war that belong on the battlefield, and we were pleased today to see yet another court agree with that stance,” Kris Brown, co-president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence crowed, echoing Judge Young’s baseless diktat.
If, in fact they are – even though modern infantry troops aren’t issued rifles limited to semiautomatic functioning – the question becomes why Brown and the gun-grabbers are fine with police being issued “weapons of war” (although they often mask that by referring to them as “patrol rifles” when in the hands of state-deployed enforcers).
Still, Brown is an apparatchik – you expect gloating and repetition of narrative-advancing talking points from flacks. Young carries with his opinion the full force of the state, and his is indefensible.
Not only would he be utterly incapable at knowledgeably addressing Founding intent for the Second Amendment, he would reveal himself to be speaking exclusively from biased personal opinion if publicly put on the spot to explain past Supreme Court acknowledgment of what that included:
“[T]he Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense … [who] were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time [and] “the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear … ordinary military equipment … that … could contribute to the common defense.”
Those citizens couldn’t very well fulfill that duty if they didn’t already possess such arms and have the ability to travel freely with them – as was and is “the birthright of an American.”
And Young is living proof that, as bad as the Democrats are on guns, no one can hurt us quite like a Republican turncoat. He was appointed by Ronald Reagan, making him a disappointment along with no shortage of other “conservative” federal court nominees. And Reagan himself, reputation as a “conservative hero” for gun owners notwithstanding, in actuality was not. When I conducted a poll some years back listing his actions but withholding his identity, the results were:
“[Nearly 80% of … who voted based solely on his actions deemed them ‘traitorous,’ and the vast majority of the balance deemed them ‘misguided.'”
I get the Reagan mystique. I remember many aspects of his presidency with good thoughts. But we can’t gloss over the fact that when Democrats do what he did, gun owners scream their heads off.
Where the lawsuit against Massachusetts goes from here is uncertain. Hopefully I’m wrong, but I just don’t expect much help from the First Circuit. As we’ve seen time and again, all the Supreme Court has to do to let bad “law” stand is, literally, nothing. Just don’t hear the appeal.
As is, the complaint focused on things like home defense and the popularity of affected firearms along with arguments over definitions, retroactivity, economic harm, hunting, sport shooting and the like. Nowhere does it reference “militia” or the “ordinary military equipment … that … could contribute to the common defense” reasons acknowledged by the Miller court. That would seem to make overcoming the district court setback even more difficult, as “common use at the time” was intended to reflect what the military used.
We’ve seen it before, when courts hold since you’ve got some options available to you, your rights aren’t being infringed. Of course they are, but this is the kind of judicial tyranny that most Americans remain obliviously unaware of, except for what a political and media establishment tell them about it.
I’m not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but to my layman’s understanding, the approach explained by Dr. Edwin Vieira in his petition for Kolbe v. Hogan merits serious consideration on any challenges to bans on weapons that “could contribute to the common defense.”
If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work. You can donate HERE.
David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?”