Federal District Judge Rules MA Gun Ban 'Constitutional' – Seriously

P. Gardner Goldsmith | December 26, 2023
Text Audio
00:00 00:00
Font Size

Many saw this coming.

As many proponents and defenders of the right to keep and bear arms have warned since the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) issued its “NY Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen” in 2022, the two-tiered “scrutiny” the SCOTUS invented as the “litmus test” to see if state infringements on the right to keep and bear arms actually are infringements has become the slippery slope many thought it would.

Recently, that “Bruen” two-tier standard just invited a lower court to say it’s a-okay for Massachusetts politicians to ban guns.

Nicki Brown reports for CNN:

“A federal judge ruled a Massachusetts ban on assault weapons is consistent with a recent landmark Supreme Court decision that established firearms regulations must be consistent with the nation’s ‘historical tradition.’”

This focuses our attention on the two levels of so-called “scrutiny” provided as new precedent in “Bruen.”

Related: Ninth Circuit Court Panel Rules Against State Attempts To Block 3-D Gun-Printing Files | MRCTV

First, the SCOTUS in 2022 ruled that gun-grab statutes and anything associated with the right to keep and bear arms (licensing, waiting periods, etc.) must be studied with regard to the strict wording of the Second Amendment.

Second, the SCOTUS ruled that these rights-infringing statutes must be checked according to their resemblance to any early US “gun rights infringing” move by a government (local, state, or federal) that can be viewed as analogous to the contemporary statute.

“’The relevant history affirms the principle that in 1791, as now, there was a tradition of regulating ‘dangerous and unusual’ weapons – specifically, those that are not reasonably necessary for self-defense,’” U.S. District Chief Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV wrote in an order Thursday.”

Let’s employ some logic, history, and ethics to pierce this smokescreen of socialism. Notice what the judge claimed, that in 1791, at the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights, there was a "tradition" of blocking ownership of "unusual" firearms. This exposes, first, the illogic of the man to claim that any firearm that isn't widely owned is to be distinguished from others (a few Americans owned personal cannons, and Paul Revere used to make them).

Second, this shows us that the Bruen "second level" standard of "is there historical precedent for an analogue to this contemporary kind of 'rights infringement'?" has nothing to do with rights or justice. It’s an opening for government to point their tax-funded weapons at us while simultaneously pointing to their rationales: previous instances of other government officials targeting people of their own eras.

Third, this fallacious language from the judge reminds us that the second level of Bruen has nothing to do with the strict wording of the Second Amendment, which is all that should matter to a person operating under the Constitution. If the Second Amendment strictly asserts, nay, MANDATES, that no body of government can infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, then it doesn’t matter who in the SCOTUS or what federal judge creates an exception for one or two or any number of weapons they don’t like.

The second level of Bruen actually contradicts the first level, which requires that strict reading of “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”

To cap that off, one might go beyond the Constitution, and wonder, on an ethical level, how a group of political players can claim the power to "make rules" for others about how, when, and where (and of what kind), they may own a firearm.

Of course, one can wonder, but they in the halls of the government claim “authority” over us, so we are relegated to the posts of constant fighters, constantly vigilant, to beware the machinations of the political predators.

In the case of Massachusetts, this judge is entirely on the side of the government.

What a surprise.

In fact, Judge Saylor took it upon himself to decide that the amorphous, undefined term “assault weapons” can apply to what the state decides, and he also thinks these "eeevil" weapons aren’t suitable for self-defense.

He thinks so, so you must comply with what he thinks. Get it?

“’The assault weapons prohibited by the Massachusetts ban are ‘not suitable for ordinary self-defense purposes, and pose substantial dangers far beyond those inherent in the design of ordinary firearms,’ the judge wrote.”

Remember that when buying a rifle to protect your home from intruders, when buying a rifle to protect your farm or woodland abode, or when you get a rifle to protect yourself against potential government attackers.

Ahh, but government exists only by attacking and taking the fruits of our labor. How dare we, like the people at Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts did in April of 1775, want to own weapons to defend our rights against government goons who might attack us and our progeny?

Massachusetts was the home of the shot heard round the world.
Operative and pertinent words being “SHOT” and “HEARD.”

Those ought to be enough for the Judge Saylors of America to see why the Second Amendment was written.

Perhaps they are deaf to the echoes of fights for liberty. Perhaps they, like even the majority on the SCOTUS, are blind to the meaning of rights and the wording of the Second Amendment.

We are not.

We see, and understand that the fight for our rights against conniving tyrants never ends.

Follow MRCTV on X!