Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

This is complete BULLCRAP!!!

The federal judge who said that the ownership of AR15's and AK47's "fall beyond the reach of the Second Amendment" should be impeached for refusing to uphold the US Constitution. There is no limit expressed or implied, but rather is all inclusive based on the words "Arms" and "Shall not be infringed". I am so glad I left New England 20 years ago. I hope that there is an appeal made to a higher court.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/assault-we ... achusetts/

A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit challenging Massachusetts' ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, saying in a ruling released Friday that the weapons fall beyond the reach of the Second Amendment. U.S. District Judge William Young said assault weapons are military firearms and aren't protected by the constitutional right to "bear arms." Regulation of the weapons is a matter of policy, not for the courts, he said.

These policy matters are simply not of constitutional moment.

Agreed! No matter how many times I read this it does not contain any words to identify what or where is defined.

And to maintain a fair and balanced value between government and the people it AR15's are fair game.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Until the Supreme Court makes a ruling specifically on guns such as the AR and the AK, as they have with handguns, there will be more localities and states introducing bans just like this. In light of the Caetano decision, which was also in Massachusetts, and the wording by the Court then ... I don't see how this ban can stand.

"In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.[7] Citing District of Columbia v. Heller[8] and McDonald v. City of Chicago,[9] the Court began its opinion by stating that "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".

Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. ___ (2016)

So...the militia is not military? Is that what he is saying? An arm that the military is not the least interested in using is a military weapon and should be withheld from the militia. That's the logic?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

And where in the 2nd is described what is and what is not protected? Until such limits are found, everything is only a judge personal opinion.

The whole situation is mind-boggling. How on God's green earth can a judge say that the Second Amendment does not apply to military grade weapons? The entire purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that the people have military grade weapons so they can defend themselves against tyranny. The people having military grade weapons is the only reason for the Second Amendment that was given in the Second Amendment itself!

This is Judge is completely daft! He really should be impeached.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

We really do need a "score card/grade card" for judges.

When their rulings are appealed a record should be kept of the ones where higher courts said they were right vs. wrong and if they can't maintain a passing grade - they fail and are removed from their position.

I like that idea!

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]