ICYM - Massachusetts Law Bans Ownership of "Assault Weapons" Whatever Those Are... - Granite Grok

ICYM – Massachusetts Law Bans Ownership of “Assault Weapons” Whatever Those Are…

Words mean things. I think we’ve made that clear. But this isn’t Massachusetts.

A Massachusetts statute 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 a violation of the Second Amendment. Unfortunately, federal district court judge William Young upheld the ban.

Judge Young has some interesting ideas about firearms which tells us he knows nothing about them.

Judge Young followed the lead of the Fourth Circuit case of Kolbe v. Hogan (in which Cato filed a brief supporting a petition to the Supreme Court) which misconstrued from a shred of the landmark 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller case that the test for whether a class of weapons could be banned was whether it was “like an M-16,” contravening the core of Heller—that all weapons in common civilian use are constitutionally protected. What’s worse is that Judge Young seemed to go a step further, rejecting the argument that an “M-16” is a machine gun, unlike the weapons banned by Massachusetts, and deciding that semi-automatics are “almost identical to the M16, except for the mode of firing.” (The mode of firing is, of course, the principle distinction between automatic and semi-automatic firearms.)

There’s another problem with the ruling? Side arms used by patrol officers become weapons of war in the hads of law-abiding citizens. Sorry, law-abiding no more.

Further, the district court incorrectly framed the question as whether the banned weapons were actually used in defensive shootings, instead of following Supreme Court precedent and asking whether the arms were possessed for lawful purposes (as they unquestionably were).

Massachusetts is messed up. Judge Young reaffirmed that.

We might want to revisit this legislation. “Warning Massachusetts Border 500 Feet.”

>