Massachusetts attacks her own Citizens, to limit their freedoms; to make them be a helpless herd of sheep!

Massachusetts lead the charge into tyranny, with impossible gun restrictions on her Citizens! Those Citizens are suing them for violating their Constitutional Rights under the Second and Fourth Amendment.

The law is so unclear it will go to the Supreme Court for clarification. The state claims that nothing but pistols are acceptable, because that is all you need for home defense.

Image from article:
https://gunpowdermagazine.com/massachusetts-ban-on-most-self-defense-firearms-violates-second-amendment/

The higher courts have not been able to agree yet!

Article on Mass lawsuit:
https://gunpowdermagazine.com/massachusetts-ban-on-most-self-defense-firearms-violates-second-amendment/

First of all, the Second Amendment is NOT limited to hunting or home defense. The writings of the Founding Fathers make the function clear. The Second Amendment is so WE THE PEOPLE will have the needed ability to remove the existing government, if they violate the Constitution. Those fellas were pretty smart, and studied men, and History. ...

They Knew that our employees in DC would come to believe they are actually rulers! I fear we may be there today.

Massachusetts law currently 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.

Since an "Assault Rifle" is a Military Weapon, with selectable fire ability; and NOT a simple semi-automatic rifle owned by most everyone, this law is ludicrous and non-Constitutional!

The plaintiffs are now asking the Supreme Court to hear their case. Cato, joined by several organizations interested in the protection of our civil liberties, has filed an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs’ petition. We discuss how the federal circuit courts have, absent further guidance from the Supreme Court, stumbled around in the dark in their attempts to apply Heller’s “common use” test.

Although the courts have uniformly looked to statistical data of some form in establishing common use, they have been unable to agree on what the relevant statistic is. The total number of the banned weapons owned, the percentage the banned weapons constitute of the total national arms stock, and the number of jurisdictions in which the banned weapons are lawful have all been used to determine the breadth of constitutional protection. By any metric, however, the weapons banned by the Massachusetts law are clearly in “common use.”

This is clearly true because in the last month a Lady who was 8 months pregnant defended her 11 year old Daughter, and he Husband who was down and being beaten badly; with an AR-15! A 65 year old Man in Tulsa stopped three home invaders...with an AR-15.

I would have used something heavier myself!

Today, the majority of firearms sold in the United States for self-defense are illegal in Massachusetts. The lower courts erred in upholding this abridgment of Bay State residents’ rights. The state law is unconstitutional on its face, while the rationales provided to uphold it lack legal or historical foundation. We urge the Supreme Court to hear the plaintiffs’ case and make clear that the Second Amendment is not a second-class right.

Tyranny begins with small infractions of Liberty, and hell usually follows that.

The Second Amendment:
https://www.thoughtco.com/overview-of-the-second-amendment-721395

Here is the text of the Second Amendment:

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.

I think we should explain to the scum vermin politicians in Mass that they should NOT Ignore the last four words! They have violated their oath of office to "Protect and Defend" the Constitution; so they should be removed and replaced, for lying.

Interpretations of the Second Amendment

There are three predominant interpretations of the Second Amendment.

First:

The civilian militia interpretation, which holds that the Second Amendment is no longer valid, having been intended to protect a militia system that is no longer in place.

Second:

The individual rights interpretation, which holds that the individual right to bear arms is a basic right on the same order as the right to free speech.

Third:

The median interpretation, which holds that the Second Amendment does protect an individual right to bear arms but is restricted by the militia language in some way.

Since these Rights were given to Free Men by GOD himself, and NOT the government; and can never be taken away, per the Founding Fathers themselves! How dare they try to infringe upon GOD Given Rights? Shame on them!

Fire them and replace them with Honest Men!