Federal Judge Exerts Personal Judicial Tyranny in MA Semi-auto Ban Lawsuit Dismissal

U.S. District Judge William Young has no problem trashing his oath and imposing his will, even when his fraudulent assertions about “the right to keep and bear … ordinary military equipment … that … could contribute to the common defense” are demonstrably unfunded and subjective. (Boston University School of Law)

“The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional rights to ‘bear arms,” U.S. District Judge William Young wrote in a decision Thursday in Boston, dismissing a lawsuit over Massachusetts’ so-called “assault weapon” ban.

“There was no due process, no public input, no members of the legislature debated the issue and the governor never signed it into law,” Gun Owners Action League had noted in its lawsuit announcement. “Licensed gun owners are now threatened with a ten-year felony charge for owning firearms that were legal the day before her announcement. Hundreds of thousands of these firearms were legally bought and sold for over two decades, and they became illegal overnight. Since 1994, these firearms have been recognized by state and federal law as legal to possess, own, and sell.”

Not anymore.

“These are weapons of war that belong on the battlefield, and we were pleased today to see yet another court agree with that stance,” Kris Brown, co-president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence crowed, echoing Judge Young’s baseless diktat.

If, in fact they are – even though modern infantry troops aren’t issued rifles limited to semiautomatic functioning – the question becomes why Brown and the gun-grabbers are fine with police being issued “weapons of war” (although they often mask that by referring to them as “patrol rifles” when in the hands of state-deployed enforcers).

Still, Brown is an apparatchik – you expect gloating and repetition of narrative-advancing talking points from flacks.  Young carries with his opinion the full force of the state, and his is indefensible.

Not only would he be utterly incapable at knowledgeably addressing Founding intent for the Second Amendment, he would reveal himself to be speaking exclusively from biased personal opinion if publicly put on the spot to explain past Supreme Court acknowledgment of what that included:

“[T]he Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense … [who] were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time [and] “the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear … ordinary military equipment … that … could contribute to the common defense.”

Those citizens couldn’t very well fulfill that duty if they didn’t already possess such arms and have the ability to travel freely with them – as was and is “the birthright of an American.”

And Young is living proof that, as bad as the Democrats are on guns, no one can hurt us quite like a Republican turncoat. He was appointed by Ronald Reagan, making him a disappointment along with no shortage of other “conservative” federal court nominees. And Reagan himself, reputation as a “conservative hero” for gun owners notwithstanding, in actuality was not. When I conducted a poll some years back listing his actions but withholding his identity, the results were:

“[Nearly 80% of … who voted based solely on his actions deemed them ‘traitorous,’ and the vast majority of the balance deemed them ‘misguided.'”

I get the Reagan mystique. I remember many aspects of his presidency with good thoughts. But we can’t gloss over the fact that when Democrats do what he did, gun owners scream their heads off.

Where the lawsuit against Massachusetts goes from here is uncertain. Hopefully I’m wrong, but I just don’t expect much help from the First Circuit. As we’ve seen time and again, all the Supreme Court has to do to let bad “law” stand is, literally, nothing. Just don’t hear the appeal.

As is, the complaint focused on things like home defense and the popularity of affected firearms along with arguments over definitions, retroactivity, economic harm, hunting, sport shooting and the like. Nowhere does it reference “militia” or the “ordinary military equipment … that … could contribute to the common defense” reasons acknowledged by the Miller court. That would seem to make overcoming the district court setback even more difficult, as “common use at the time” was intended to reflect what the military used.

We’ve seen it before, when courts hold since you’ve got some options available to you, your rights aren’t being infringed.  Of course they are, but this is the kind of judicial tyranny that most Americans remain obliviously unaware of, except for what a political and media establishment tell them about it.

I’m not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but to my layman’s understanding, the approach explained by Dr. Edwin Vieira in his petition for Kolbe v. Hogan merits serious consideration on any challenges to bans on weapons that “could contribute to the common defense.”

—–

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

—–

David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?”

About Author

David Codrea

David Codrea blogs at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance (WarOnGuns.com), and is a field editor/columnist for GUNS Magazine. Named “Journalist of the Year” in 2011 by the Second Amendment Foundation for his groundbreaking work on the “Fast and Furious” ATF “gunwalking” scandal, he is a frequent event speaker and guest on national radio and television programs.

Comments

  1. WGP 7 April, 2018, 12:03

    We need civilian grand jury’s to prosecute all public servants whose oath clearly abandoned. Else, we will soon have a meaningless constitution and good people will wonder why they are pigs in a cage.

    When there is no consequences, thete is no change in behavior. Pretty simple.

    Lical police, state police, fed ABC agencies all have full auto weapons of war and tell us who the hell are they going to use them on? Matrtan Invaders? Nope. YOU when your guns are flint locks….oh but wait, those were weapons of war as well. What gun hasn’t been? This judge’s logic is full of holes…like most judges.

    We should consider outlawing the BAR again and close up law schools. They have proven more dangerous than Rothschild’s banks.

    No offense to Stewart and others of his like.

    Reply this comment
  2. Retired Navy Spook 7 April, 2018, 12:24

    “U.S. District Judge William Young has no problem trashing his oath and imposing his will, even when his fraudulent assertions about “the right to keep and bear … ordinary military equipment … that … could contribute to the common defense” are demonstrably unfunded (probably should be unfounded) and subjective.”

    And as long as there are no consequences for willfully violating the oath, public servants will continue to do so. Loss of their job and pension might change that. Absent that, I have no doubt there will be a great reckoning one of these days.

    Reply this comment
    • Henry 7 April, 2018, 16:42

      A Massachusetts judge is at absolutely no risk of losing his job or his pension for making an anti-gun ruling. Massachusetts judges are neither elected nor subject to recall. They serve at the pleasure of the state, and the legislature and executive branches of Massachusetts both loves them some gun banning.

      Reply this comment
      • Cal 7 April, 2018, 21:51

        “… judge is at absolutely no risk of losing his job or his pension …”

        You’re incorrect. The problem is not the judge, but the people being ignorant. All judges are ALLOWED to keep their office for life IF they use “good Behaviour” while serving in office. What defines good behavior? The US Constitution when it says what their duties are in writing, and when it REQUIRES that they take and KEEP an Oath to “Support and Defend” the US Constitution.

        Reply this comment
    • Judson 9 April, 2018, 21:55

      People across the nation should be writing complaint’s to the House Judicial Committee in Washington D.C. demanding this judge be recalled, and jerked off the bench. For breech of his fudicial oath to uphold the Constitution “For” the united States and more importantly the Bill of Rights!

      Reply this comment
  3. Tim Allen 7 April, 2018, 16:21

    I addressed one of these key points just yesterday, regarding a different story. That point was, if AR15s are weapons of war, then every law enforcement agency that has them, trains with them, and places them into service, is at war against the people of this country. This means a civil war is current, even if the shooting has not started,…or has it? I guess it all depends on which side is allowed to have and use the weapons of war.

    Reply this comment
  4. SheepDog 7 April, 2018, 16:48

    Why is it none of the legal challenges to these current bans seem to argue Ex Post Facto as well as 2A?

    U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Sec. 9 – Limits on Congress – “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed”.
    U.S. Constituion, Article 1, Sec. 10 – Powers Prohibited of States – “No State shall…make any…ex post facto law…”.

    Definition: Ex post facto – “Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal” [Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798].

    If it is legally owned today, they can’t legally take it after passing a ban.

    That doesn’t mean they won’t try…. There are a lot of unconstitutional laws in existence; and too few people who can afford, or have the willingness, to challenge them… And too few ethical Judges willing to adhere to the Constitution…

    Reply this comment
    • MadMagyar 7 April, 2018, 21:19

      Well, the US Congress has no problem violating the “no ex post facto laws” prohibition in the Constitution. See here:
      http://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1951-2000/The-admission-of-Ohio-as-a-state/

      Probably because that would mean a few so-called “Presidents” were never really President, ergo the Vice-Presidents were actually the Presidents, and those Congresses of those past decades were never legally called into session. Opens up a whole lot of cans of worms. But since nobody’s holding Congress accountable, for this or any other of the thousands of violations of the Constitution, they know they can (literally) get away with murder. They’ll just keep on doing as they please – until one day enough people wake up to tip the scales of outrage and action.

      Reply this comment
    • Voyager1 8 April, 2018, 22:03

      It’s time to take back the narrative and REFUSE to label arbitrary rulings by a tyrannical Federal Judge, “law”. Since when do judges legislate from a bench?? Since when do Attorney Generals (Laura H.) legislate from an office?? This is no mote law than if the Chinese invaded and placed new demands upon the American People. These tyrants are clearly domestic enemies hell-bent on subjugating us.. We should re-gain focus on the common law of the founding era, and the importance of the Supremacy Clause. There are many judicial decisions that were made during the first 150 years of American judicial history that flatly contradict these so-called rulings, ordinances and color of law statutes . Clearly, the more recent ones which violate both Federal and State Constitutions and the US Code are fully null and void. We must take back the narrative within our own ranks.

      Reply this comment
    • Arik 9 April, 2018, 07:11

      They don’t care.. they own the courts… or at least they think they do…

      Reply this comment
    • Edwin Vieira, Jr. 9 April, 2018, 08:40

      An ex post facto law criminalizes conduct undertaken in the past, not future conduct. The typical State “assault firearms” ban does NOT criminalize the possession of “assault firearms” in the past, but decrees that FUTURE possession will be a violation. Many of these statutes have “grandfather” provisions which immunize firearms possessed prior to enactment of the statute; others give “grace periods” during which the banned firearms may be disposed of in some way by the owners before the criminal penalty for possession takes effect. So trying to overturn these statutes on an “ex post facto law” theory will not be successful.

      Reply this comment
      • Greg K 9 April, 2018, 13:05

        While correct, the government has applied that very logic for persons convicted of either a felony before 1968, or a 4th degree misdemeanor assault before 1996. Calder V. Bull plainly describes adding a penalty after a law has been changed, is clearly a violation. However the ATF defines it as not allowing a person going forward to practice their RIGHTS. Isn’t that the same thing, with a slightly different flavor?

        Besides, we should be just as well armed as the Government, because that “Right Shall not be Infringed,” right?

        Reply this comment
      • SheepDog 12 April, 2018, 10:06

        So if I legally own a 1 million dollar home today, and in 10 years the ruling class passes a law that says no one can own a home valued at more than 750K, the government can force me to permanently destroy that home, move that home to another state where it would be legally permitted, or force me to turn my home over to the government for destruction?
        Mr. Viera, I know you are an attorney [and I am not], but I disagree with your interpretation of ex post facto. I interpret it to mean that government may be able to prohibit you from future acquisition of a certain item, but if it was legal to own in the past, and you did legally own it in the past, and you still owned it when any ban takes place, government cannot then forcibly take it from you.
        No disrespect, but I wonder if perhaps your interpretation may be what was taught in your law school after years of misinterpretation and maligning by the lawyers and courts [just as the 2A has been [and still is today]], rather than the simple interpretation of the clause as written?
        As a 30 year law enforcement veteran I have listened to a lot of lawyers argue their interpretations of many statutes. I have learned that our laws can often be easily interpreted in different ways with a little creative thinking, and then put into legal opinions with a little creative writing. Those ‘creative opinions’ are then ‘cherry picked’ by the next lawyer or judge to support their particular viewpoint, and on it goes.
        Much of the U.S. Constitution is easily interpreted by anyone who can read and comprehend the English language. The Founders were smart enough to found the greatest nation on this earth, but they weren’t bright enough to know what “…shall not be infringed” meant?
        We have allowed the lawyers and judges too much latitude in this decision making process.

        Reply this comment
        • Greg K 12 April, 2018, 12:48

          Excellent point Dog! This my friend is exactly why “Bill of Attainder” and “Ex Post Facto,” are in fact, in the same sentence.

          I just learned that about 4 years ago…always open for learning something new/old.

          Reply this comment
  5. Charlie BROWN 7 April, 2018, 17:32

    All I could think of while reading this article is hmmmm. It is the same state,the same month less twelve days difference. Could this be the 2nd shot heard around the world? King George(the globalist) Agenda 21 They aren’t going to stop until they get what they are after. As far as the Constitution goes, it is a bad taste on the back of their tongues. They don’t care about it, it is just an annoying old document that they wish we would quit thinking about.The situation is like a painful pimple that has finally come to a head. I had more to say, but will hold it for now.

    Reply this comment
  6. Cal 7 April, 2018, 21:53

    FYI *Good Behaviour” requirement for judges. They get a jury trial to determine if they conformed to the US Constitution (and their state Constitution – both – if state judge), and ig they took and kept their Oath.

    Reply this comment
  7. Linda 8 April, 2018, 02:36

    The only course of action left is for the people of MA to not consent and not comply thereby nullifying the unlawful law on the spot.

    Reply this comment
  8. Will 8 April, 2018, 07:23

    Any law at odds with the constituton is null and void on its face.

    Reply this comment
  9. 11B20 8 April, 2018, 09:21

    Multiple States and individual city’s are outlawing semi Auto weapons and military style weapons. The battlefield is being drawn and as a combat infantryman, I do not see a 50 state union that will coexist without war, simply because our Constitution will not serve all citizens the same. There will be a skirmish at the very least and if anyone believes we will remain peaceful I say this. When a state takes away the right to firearms, do you not think that eventually that same state will do away with the right to free speech? Freedom of expression? Due process? Freedom of religion? History tells the tale of disarmament and those states that take the rights of is citizens away will continue to do so. Free states at this point will not sit idle while parts of those union strip the rights of their people.

    Reply this comment
    • Cal 8 April, 2018, 12:31

      “… simply because our Constitution will not serve all citizens the same.”

      I disagree. All are EQUAL under the Law. The problem is NOT the US Constitution, it is the people who SERVE WITHIN OUR GOVERNMENTS – state and federal.

      “When a state takes away the right to firearms, do you not think that eventually that same state will do away with the right to free speech? Freedom of expression? Due process? Freedom of religion?’

      Yoshimi Ishikawa, Japanese author, in the LA Times 15 Oct 1992: “Americans have the will to resist because you have weapons. If you don’t have a gun, freedom of speech has no power.”

      Reply this comment
      • 11B20 8 April, 2018, 13:13

        You are correct, it is the will of the citizen that keeps them equal, but I see the free states eventually taking a stand and acting on behalf of those that do not, stand up “sheep”. I do not see States like mine, Indiana allowing states to continue down this road all because the Supreme Court chooses to let each state decide for itself wether to allow citizens the right to keep arms. I hope this reverses but I cannot see it. I’m a veteran, I don’t think this is reversible

        Reply this comment
        • Cal 9 April, 2018, 13:47

          “… all because the Supreme Court chooses to let each state decide for itself…”

          This is not a matter for the “supreme’s”, remember that judges do NOT make law, they issue OPINIONS on if something is constitutional or not. They do NOT have “power” over the state’s any more then any branch of the federal government does EXCEPT in the areas that are found in writing within the US Constitution that DELEGATES from the states authority over it. (Examples would be Naturalization or War, pretty much all found within Article 1, Section 8.)

          Remember that the People created the state’s first, and hold the power there if so wanted and bothers to educate themselves on their state Constitution (highest contract for all state employees at all levels; also the highest LAW of the state. This is why when voting one should always be VERY hesitant to vote for any Amendment because – I feel – those who serve within government usually will not allow LESS power to themselves. Amendments change the Constitution.)

          Reply this comment
  10. AmercianJoe 8 April, 2018, 12:18

    I don’t look to judges or other government employees to protect my rights; they have all fled from this responsibility years ago.

    I can protect my rights with my little Armalite rifle.

    Anyone who gets rid of their guns is an idiot. “Oooo, they might put me in prison Bluto.” That’s why you shoot them in the face.

    Reply this comment
  11. Docerdoo 8 April, 2018, 12:52

    Can the POTUS impeach the judge?

    Reply this comment
  12. Fred 8 April, 2018, 13:14

    “Superior firepower being necessary to domination by a communist state, the right of judges to make law from the bench shall not be infringed.”

    Reply this comment
  13. joe 8 April, 2018, 19:35

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quhNvOXBCMs

    Kitty Werthmann Holocaust Survivor.
    Touching speech……..
    “KEEP YOUR GUNS AND BUY MORE GUNS”
    Talks of “Snitch Groups”……….?
    Hmmmmmmmmmmm…………
    “If you see something say something”
    Modern day “SNITCH GROUPS”
    Rogue elected officials………..
    Disobey the oath of office……
    Encourage constituents to do so as well…….
    GOD BLESS AMERICA.

    Reply this comment
  14. Gary northcal 8 April, 2018, 22:43

    Goes completely against his oath… And there’s no repercussions that can legally be brought against him?…… I said it before and I’ll say it again if those who are in office do not abide by their oath of office, then, why should I feel I should obey any law… And this judge says this with a straight face!…….. you can judicate from the bench… I thought you were to interpret the Constitution… And I’ve read the Second Amendment numerous times and at the end of it, or the beginning of it for that matter I have failed to see in small parentheses a quote such as… At the government’s discretion… Pitifully sad times we live in!… Then again several years ago 4 out of the nine Supreme Court Justices couldn’t understand what the Second Amendment said… Once again how sad the corruption at the highest levels are…

    Reply this comment
  15. BigMike 9 April, 2018, 05:57

    i too now live in a Communist state now that the new Governor Murphy has taken power his 1st act was to create an Agency to protect the rights of (illegals) which have no rights under our laws! He has also vowed to sign every last old and new gun bill put on his desk and he needs to be removed from office befor his term is up!Sadly only 37% of the state of New Jersey’s population got out to vote and I fear that there is no vetting of our Elections?You would think after Wasserman fixed the Primary’s for Hillary that all elections at all levels of local,state and Federal Elections would be checked for fraud and sadly I do not think they are! I will never submit to any new laws that restrict my right to protect my self and my family and would rather die on my feet then live on my knees,rather then follow Communist laws forced upon us!!! GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!

    Reply this comment
  16. Rick Costello 9 April, 2018, 06:14

    A landmark 2013 case was Caetano v. Massachusetts (Supreme Court of the US) vacated (unanimously) a Massachusetts case saying: “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding” and that “the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States”.

    Only some left leaning statist could, looking at the unanimous decision of the highest court in the land, perceive they have some leeway in ‘interpreting’ their authority to say the exact opposite. The decision made was unconstitutional and wholly insubordinate. Thus, these two judges, should in my opinion, be subject to immediate impeachment because their actions are what subverts the courts creating frivolous case law, effecting real lives while in blatant opposition to higher courts.

    In the case mentioned above Justice Alito wrote: “if the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming people than about keeping them safe”. Disarming the population is EXACTLY what the questions relating to the 2nd Amendment are all about.

    Reply this comment
  17. Arik 9 April, 2018, 06:31

    This fool Should be fired and fined! the people of the state should hold him accountable!!
    But Its ok for him to have armed protection..

    Reply this comment
  18. Vinny 9 April, 2018, 09:06

    Comment after comment, opinion after opinion, and the band plays on….the absolute bottom line is that this will keep going on until there is a full face to face confrontation….it is impossible that it can be avoided ! The opposition is well financed, supported and will not stop the attack. Globalist Communists, now fortified with the ME-TOO, BLM, ANTIFA and student population have gained a notable foothold……all I can say is….stand ready and be well prepared.

    Reply this comment
  19. Billy 9 April, 2018, 09:43

    The Judge and or a City Council can make all the Decisions and Ordnances they want. Judges nor City Councils make law’s. It is up to that States Representatives to make that Law. If the City fines you. Take the fines and File a Federal Civil Class Action Law suite. Until your State Rep’s vote on the Law your 2nd Amendment Rights will be upheld. Then I see it going to your state supreme court if upheld then to SCOTUS.

    Reply this comment
  20. Sky 9 April, 2018, 10:14

    What happens if we bought a “Massachusetts-compliant” AR-15 before this ruling? Do we now have to turn it in because it’s illegal? If so, that’s not right!!!

    Reply this comment
    • DK 9 April, 2018, 13:44

      So sorry this is happening to you and your state. Wish I had an answer because I’m afraid it’s going to happen in ours. If this country “builds a wall” I just hope it does it on the California and New York State lines

      Reply this comment
    • WGP 10 April, 2018, 20:43

      Right answer: ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

      Reply this comment
  21. The Enforcer 9 April, 2018, 10:38

    This will only lead to a 2nd American civil war. This is what the LIBERAL Decmocrats want. They only function is to destroy the US Consitution and America. MOLON LABE!!!!

    Reply this comment
  22. chucko 9 April, 2018, 10:43

    To all 2nd A individuals, if Massachusetts attempts to enforce this ban we must stand up and say NO! We must refuse to give our AR’s to the government and refuse to let them take them together protecting each other. Stand and protect the 2nd.

    Reply this comment
  23. NW Water 9 April, 2018, 12:03

    ““The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional rights to ‘bear arms,” U.S. District Judge William Young wrote in a decision Thursday in Boston, dismissing a lawsuit over Massachusetts’ so-called “assault weapon” ban”. Clearly this brain-dead judge has not done the necessary research. The “Puckle gun” was created *nearly 70 yrs* before the nation was formed. https://www.historyandheadlines.com/may-15-1718-first-machine-gun-patented-james-puckle/

    Reply this comment
  24. 175 gr 9 April, 2018, 16:17

    Appeal it, take it to the SCOTUS.

    Reply this comment
  25. Judson 9 April, 2018, 22:06

    We and others should go on line to the House Judicially Committees web site and look up the form for filling complaint’s for petition for recall of a federal judge. In this case for his deliberant violation of his oath of office and demand his trial for Treason agents’ the united States Constitution and more importantly the Bill of Rights! The 2nd. Am. is her to protect us “We the people” from traders’ conspirator’s like this Politically appointed so called judge and other criminal’s. This also in the complaint should point out that his actions are violate of our religious Freedoms for protecting our selves.

    Reply this comment
  26. Judson 9 April, 2018, 22:16

    The other solution is for the States to start giving Washington notice that they will with draw from the Union if these treasons politically appointees are not recalled from there office and charged with treason of there oath, and there undermining of the Constitutional Freedom’, and Bill Of Rights protection’s, As well as our religion’s Freedoms.

    Reply this comment
  27. jecmwil 12 April, 2018, 19:58

    It is a shame that it seems that they want the next Battlefield to be on American soil with another Revolution that the Politicians will not win – unless their idea of winning is getting burried in the ground.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Your e-mail address will not be published.
Required fields are marked*