"Right to Bear Arms"...Not Exactly

posted by Lightning - 

Here in Massachusetts, a federal judge, Judge William Young has ruled in Attorney General Maura Healey's favor after the Gun Owners Action League of Massachusetts sued and filed a lawsuit against the 1998 assault weapon ban. Their arguement is that the AR-15 cannot be considered a "military weapon" because it cannot fire in fully automatic mode. Healey of course defend this ban saying that this ban “vindicates the right of the people of Massachusetts to protect themselves from these weapons of war and our efforts to enforce the law.”

Judge Young concluded in these proceedings that “The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to ‘bear arms,”. This decision came as a blow to gun enthuastics alike across the state. The Gun Owner's Action League issued their own statement on their WEBSITE stating how concerned they are by Judge Young's ruling. Meanwhile Attorney General Maura Healy finds this to be a huge victory in Massachusetts for everyone who "has worked so hard to keep our communities and our schools safe from these weapons of war".

The shutdown of the G.O.A.L's challenge has come as shocking and upsetting for gun enthusiasts in Massachusetts and of course the NRA has been very outspoken at it's disappointment in this matter. They issued a statement on their WEBSITE as well as on Twitter. 

All in all the most shocking bit of this ruling is how it appears to be that for an amendment that did not state specific guns that you had the right to bear or not, a judge ruled on what he interpreted that amendment to include and that did not include weapons such as AR-15s. The NRA & other hard right 2nd Amendment supporters argue that the amendment is not limited to only certain types of weapons, but any type of arms they see fit to protecting one self. For more information on this ruling, visit, HERE

-Producer Lightning

title

Content Goes Here