Massachusetts Ban on Most Self‐Defense Firearms Violates Second Amendment

[livingston]

Massachusetts Ban on Most Self‐Defense Firearms Violates Second Amendment
Massachusetts law currently prohibits ownership of “assault weapons,” the statutory definition of which includes the most popular semi-automatic rifles in the country, as well as “copies or duplicates” of any such weapons. As for what that means, your guess is as good as ours. A group of plaintiffs, including two firearm dealers and the Gun Owners’ Action League, challenged the law as an unconstitutional violation of their Second Amendment rights. Unfortunately, both a federal trial judge and appellate court upheld the ban—though they could not agree on why.

The trial judge followed the lead of the Maryland case of Kolbe v. Hogan (in which Cato filed a brief supporting a petition to the Supreme Court), misconstruing from a shred of the landmark 2008 Supreme Court opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller that the test for whether a class of weapons could be banned was whether it was “like an M-16.” Meanwhile, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (in which Cato also filed a brief), conjured up a complex interest-balancing test that boiled down to a much simpler question: is it like a handgun? If not, the weapon is not sufficiently “well-suited” to self-defense in the home and can be banned. Both tests contravene the core holding of Heller that all weapons in common civilian use are constitutionally protected.

Massachusetts Ban on Most Self-Defense Firearms Violates Second Amendment

The Supreme Court needs to flesh out the scope of the right to keep and bear arms, and this extreme case is a good place to start.

www.cato.org

 

[livingston]

Several circuits have also added their own personal touches onto Heller’s test. In this case, the First Circuit panel twisted the “common use” test and looked at whether the banned weapons have “commonly been used for home self-defense purposes,” instead of for any lawful purpose. The panel also followed several other courts in balancing the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment interests against those of the government, despite the Supreme Court’s express rejection of an interest-balancing approach in Heller and the follow-up case McDonald v. City of Chicago

 

[spat]

Several circuits have also added their own personal touches onto Heller’s test. In this case, the First Circuit panel twisted the “common use” test and looked at whether the banned weapons have “commonly been used for home self-defense purposes,” instead of for any lawful purpose. The panel also followed several other courts in balancing the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment interests against those of the government, despite the Supreme Court’s express rejection of an interest-balancing approach in Heller and the follow-up case McDonald v. City of Chicago

How's this for a "common use" test. If a police department issues it or something like it, then it's in common use by civilians.

Not that the 2A should be limited to only those sorts of weapons, but if you have to have a limit, that would be a good one. Surely police don't need "weapons of mass destruction" or "weapons that are designed to kill many people as fast as possible".

If police are issuing them, then they are obviously well suited for dealing with criminals. That is of course only *one* of the reasons the 2A was written, but it is sufficient to at least cover everything the cops have.

 

[livingston]

is it like a handgun? If not, the weapon is not sufficiently “well-suited” to self-defense in the home and can be banned.....This will be quoted in case law for years to come ....

 

[BDinPutnam]

is it like a handgun? If not, the weapon is not sufficiently “well-suited” to self-defense in the home and can be banned.....This will be quoted in case law for years to come ....

Semiautomatic.
Has a pistol grip.
Compact for safe and efficient use in confined spaces.
Limited/ controlled recoil.

Sounds like an SBR to me.

 

[Podmonkey]

All this legal foofahra is bullshit anyway. According to the original intent of the 2nd Amendment all weapons should be legal for civilian ownership.
The 2A is not about self defense just as it is not about hunting. It is about allowing the citizenry access to the tools of rebellion against a tyrannical government. Thefore if the military has it, we should have it. Use a belt fed machinegun for HD if you want. You are still liable for each and every round you send down range, that is balance on the right.

 

[Jsmegs77]

To be fair, most regulation of firearms, with few exceptions, is in direct violation of the Second Amendment. That is, if you believe the Second Amendment as written, and don't attempt to gerrymander a whole politicized ecosystem around the very plain English wording.

 

[Saltwater60]

I just hope this stuff pisses off the SC and they show the left some wraith.