Login

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.

This is a obvious miscarriage of justice and one mans personal opinion and Political agenda aimed at disarming law abiding citizens. So after reading the 2nd Amendment how do the Liberals and Democrats come to the conclusion that it says Assault Weapons are not protected? I don't see one place in the whole constitution that says any weapon is not protected. It is the people right to self defense and the defense of our country from communist and socialist takeover from within!
The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791. It reads:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Article VI clause 3 of the United States Constitution requires that all who hold office in the. United States take an oath to uphold the United States Constitution: “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State. According to this statute, officials must “solemnly swear (or affirm)” that they “will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” and that they “will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.”.
Any Local, State, County or Federal employee or elected official,, under oath to protect the constitution, who intentionally violates that oath, whether through manipulation, collusion, misinterpretation, or any other form of non compliance with it's original intentions to protect the rights of citizens under the Constitution has then obtained their position under misrepresentation and fraud!
One can also see, 18 USC Sec. 912, 01/03/95; EXPCITE:
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PART I - CRIMES, CHAPTER 43 - FALSE PERSONATION; HEAD: Sec. 912. Officer or employee of the United States.
STATUTE: Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States or any department, agency or officer thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended character demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. See this and this for more information.
"In the Fifth Amendment the Nation is forbidden to deprive any one 'of life, liberty or property without due process of law'; and here the like command is issued by the people to the State. In the beginning it was National power that was feared. Experience later taught that the power of the State also may be tyrannical. Due process of law means, said the Supreme Court in a late case (1908), that 'no change in ancient procedure can be made which disregards those fundamental principles . . . which . . . protect the citizen in his private right and guard him against the arbitrary action of the government.'
Private property is taken, for public use in opening streets in cities, in constructing railways and canals, in erecting public buildings, in laying out public parks, and for kindred purposes. The owner cannot be deprived of his property for such purposes by the State without due process of law, that is, without a full hearing and adequate compensation."
if you are not in, or of, any office or government such as public school teacher, administrator, bank personnel at any level, police, fire officials or any type of city, county, state or federal government worker, military, - in other words, subject to the US constitution, then and only then are you a private citizen and a part of the private sector.
n regards to protecting oneself from "abusive" public servants: check out the [your] State laws on "stalking" and "exploitation" as well as "neglect to protect" provisions in State law [upholding and enforcing the law by parties under Oath of Office] as well as Title 18 USC §1621 concerning the "neglect to protect" by persons under Oath, and Title 42 USC § 1986, wherein a person having "knowledge of the law", "the power to stop a wrong" and the "duty to prevent a wrong from being done" is liable for any failure to act. Should they fail to prevent a wrong, having knowledge of the law, the power to prevent, and the legal or moral duty to prevent the wrong, which causes deprivations of your religious and/or civil rights or Liberties, suit can be brought for violations.
The scales could be tipped back somewhat if the public had awareness that the oath has teeth and voiced expectation that it be taken seriously.
Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order which further defines the law for purposes of enforcement.
5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office.
5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law,
5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by
5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”.
The fourth federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include:
(1) removal from office and;
(2) confinement or a fine.
The definition of “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450 which for the purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311. One provision of Executive Order 10450 specifies it is a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 for any person taking the oath of office to advocate “the alteration ... of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.” Our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States. It can only be “altered” by constitutional amendment. Thus, according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331which alters the form of government other by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.
We the people, should not be so willing to so easily let those in public service and under oath, change and diminish our Constitutional rights for their own Personal and Political reasons! We do have those in our government who have sold out and are traitors to our constitution but for some reason are not being held accountable by out Justice System. The UN agendas and NWO are based on large part in disarming Americans so that we are unable to defend ourselves and they can easily initiate their plans of World domination by the elite.
"Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our Fathers made it inviolate. The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." --Abraham Lincoln
"Bind down the Public officials with the chains of the Constitution" ---Thomas Jefferson.

The UN Security forces have Automatic Weapons and Rockets etc.. The 2nd Amendment guarantees us the right to bear arms against enemies both foreign and domestic. The UN agenda and the Agenda of politicians from both sides of the aisle has been to push the NWO. We even have Presidents, Bushes, Clinton, Obama publically and on tape suggesting that the United States relinquish it's sovereignty to the New World Order and UN. The United Nations agenda 21 had a small arms treaty in it limiting the sale and ownership of certain weapons and confiscation of others. The Liberal Democrats are now twisting our Constitution and 2nd Amendment every which way they can to take away the rights of Americans to have Semi-Automatic weapons and to limit the number of rounds in a magazine. Do you know that if we ever have to defend ourselves and our country, that the enemy will have rockets and rocket launchers, M3-50 Caliber Machine guns that can spit out 1000 rounds a minute and some fully automatic assault rifles, some of which can fire more than 1,000 rounds per minute. I really don't think a Semi-Automatic weapon with a clip that holds 17 rounds of small caliber bullets is going to very comparable to a real Assault Rifle, So let's please quit calling these Semi-Automatics AR-15s A=Armalite, R=Rifle, Assault Rifles. Any weapon can be used as an Assault Weapon!

Any office or government such as public school teacher, administrator, bank personnel at any level, police, fire officials or any type of city, county, state or federal government worker or military IS subject to the US constitution and is bound to protect and defend the Constitution. Not to Interpret or twist it to what they want it to say or to fit some personal or political agenda. They as government workers are also bound to protect and defend our country from all enemies both foreign and domestic which includes ideologies like Liberalism, Communism, Marxism, Socialism, etc. which attempt to overthrow our constitution or country by violent or non violent means. It is time to start holding them Responsible!

Not only the left has pushed these things to make it easier to ban, but the media made up term "Assault Rifle" has done it too.

\

Stories