Well, it was not a good day for the stock market and it wasn’t a good day for gun rights. A federal judge decided to uphold a law that already strengthened Massachusetts' ban on so-called assault weapons. The judge said the AR-15 was a firearm that was not "within the original meaning" of the Second Amendment in his opinion (via Bloomberg):
Massachusetts’ beefed-up ban on assault weapons doesn’t violate the Second Amendment of the Constitution, a U.S. judge ruled, handing a victory to gun-control advocates seeking to pass such a law nationwide following a spate of deadly mass shootings.
"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 the state law.
Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey was sued by a gun-rights group in response to her July 2016 enforcement notice that broadened the definition of "copies or duplicates" of AR-15 and AK-47 models that are prohibited under the state’s 1998 assault-weapon bans.
“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, said in a statement.
In Boulder, Colorado, the council is moving forward to ban AR-15s within the city limits. High capacity magazines and bump stocks will also be prohibited (via Fox31 Denver):
The Boulder City Council passed the first read of an ordinance that will ban the sale and possession of assault weapons in the city,.
The ordinance was passed unanimously after a five-hour hearing during which nearly 150 people spoke.
The proposed ordinance would also ban high-capacity magazines and bump stocks.
The city council will possibly vote on the measure two more times before it becomes law.
Recommended
Councilwoman Jill Adler Grano said, “This is not a knee-jerk reaction.”
Folks, this is why when the Left says we want a new ban on so-called assault weapons (i.e. guns we think that look scary), don’t give an inch because they will take that mile. And while there have been legal challenges on existing assault weapons bans at the state level, the Supreme Court refuses to hear arguments. I get it. We have a right to bear arms, every state to a certain degree recognizes carry rights, more states have adopted constitutional carry laws (no permit required), and Second Amendment proponents have scored big on the legal front in the past regarding the Heller and McDonald decisions. Yes, the late Justice Antonin Scalia said that no right is absolute and states are free to pass laws regulating gun ownership, but this is different. These are bans. The magazine limits give the game away. You cannot own an AR-15 rifle, which will be cited pervasively in the liberal news coverage, but what will be missed are the scores of handguns that carry more than ten rounds. These firearms are prohibited as well.
In Deerfield, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago,they banned residents from owning AR-15 rifles and high capacity magazines. They have until June to turn them over to the authorities, destroy them, or transfer them out of the village limits. Owners risk a $1,000/day fine for non-compliance. So, the Second Amendment is dead in this slice of America. They’re instituting a gun ban—and threatening law-abiding gun owners with quasi-eviction if they don’t bend to the will of the state.
In Oregon, a church group is also collecting signatures for a ballot initiative that would also force law-abiding gun owners to turn over, register, destroy, or transfer out of the state their firearms. This is why the anti-gun Left cannot be trusted. This is why the Supreme Court needs to weigh in. We’re past simple common sense gun laws now; the local authorities in these deep-blue pockets of America are coming after the Second Amendment and the people who exercise that right. We have parts of the country, where local elected bodies are saying you can’t live here if you want to own a firearm. That’s grossly unconstitutional.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member