Friday, April 13, 2018

Bungling Judicial Precedent, Federal Court Upholds AR-15 Ban by Amy Swearer

An exceptionally well done article by Amy Swearer

Last week, a federal judge for the District Court for Massachusetts granted a motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the state’s prohibition of so-called “assault weapons,” such as the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle.

Judge William Young held that the AR-15 and similar weapons aren’t protected by the Second Amendment, because they were originally designed for military service and because democracy means policymakers—not courts—are best suited to regulate weapons.

In doing so, he authored an opinion taking such extreme liberties with history, judicial precedent, and logic that one can’t help but wonder if he relied exclusively on a SparkNotes summary guide of Second Amendment jurisprudence when drafting his opinion.

Young begins his analysis by stating that “[f]or most of our history, mainstream scholarship considered the Second Amendment as nothing more than a guarantee that the several states can maintain ‘well-regulated’ militias.”

This statement is objectively untrue, unless one considers such brilliant legal minds as James Madison, Samuel Adams, George Tucker, and Joseph Story to be outside the mainstream of constitutional scholarship.

Young supports this highly questionable premise by citing early works by liberal scholar Laurence Tribe, apparently oblivious to the fact that Tribe, while still in favor of stricter gun control measures, recanted his former collectivist-right position, and now concludes that “having studied the text and history closely … the Second Amendment protects more than the collective right to own and use guns in the service of state militias and National Guard units.” Young cites seminal Second Amendment cases stating that firearms commonly used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes are protected, but then inexplicably asserts that the AR-15’s “present-day popularity is not constitutionally material.”

More Here

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

There are 26 words in the second amendment they were very carefully chosen to be written down to express the purpose of the need for personal protection and defense of country and to make sure those in government knew the people could if necessary replace that government if it became tyrannical . You cant replace the government with sling shots against machine guns. The revolutionary war started with home made muskets. as the war progress new weapons were invented .The framers expected weapons to be improved over time that is why there is no limit written on what weapons are No definition of design. Guns started off with single barrels then progressed to double barrels then there was actually a three barrels musket. American ingenuity is only limited by what any one is capable of thinking to make and the ability to make it. I don't know of any patent ever issued for a stated purpose as an assault weapon. Patents identify design and function not purpose. Civilian weapons have mostly come for military weapons there wee out to0p quality weapons made for war. I know two people that have replica 45-70 cavalry rifles. I know one person that has a 30-40 Craig. A lot of people have the 30-06 designed to be a military sniper rifle By fact of what is written in the second amendment and its intended purpose the government should never have weapons better than the citizens Citizen taxes PAY FOR THE WEAPONS THE GOVERNMENT HAS. you cant remove a tyrannical that can wipe you out because it has far better weapons than what it allow you to have. there is no question that the constitution gives to the people the power and This is the very reason the words shall Not be infringed exist. government has no authority to regulate the weapons the people can have. The first amendment is our authority and preserves our right to tell the government what we demand of it. the second amendment is our power to enforce out demands. No one in eh government the people created has the authority to interpret the constitution not even the courts. The reason the words were put on paper was to give the government the written words they must comply with If the government can say the constitution can say any thing the government decides it SAYS THERE IS NO REASON TO HAVE THE WORDS WRITTEN DOWN BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO FORCE OR EFFECT. The constitution was written to limit the power of government not to control the people. Government does not limit the people the people limit the government. The supreme court made a ruling that says if it is not written it does not exist the word interpret is not written in the constitution. There is no authority written in the constitution for any one in government to interpret any thing. What is written is what is required to be enforced without bias or opinion. The words in the constitution can be changed but those changes can only be approved by the people in a ratified amendment.