https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/9b80e7de-2b07-3f32-8d36-10b050ed5c45/massachusetts-ban-on-assault.html
"A judge in Massachusetts on Friday ruled against a lawsuit that questioned the state’s ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, declaring that the weapons were not protected by the Second Amendment.
Assault weapons are considered to be military firearms, U.S. District Judge William Young said
in his ruling, therefore disqualifying them from being included in a citizen’s right to “bear arms.”
Policy makers, rather than the courts, were better suited to decide on the regulation for the weapons, he said.
"Other states are equally free to leave them unregulated and available to their law-abiding citizens," Young said in his ruling. "These policy matters are simply not of constitutional moment. Americans are not afraid of bumptious, raucous and robust debate about these matters. We call it democracy."
Bystander say's: So if I'm reading this correctly this judge is saying the state of Massachusetts is banning these weapons because of their own reasoning (weapons of war) but the ruling is not an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment on the federal level. I think this because he is saying other states are free to interpret the 2nd Amendment at will and that his ruling is simply a state's rights issue and that they have that right to interpret the Constitution as they see fit.
Click to expand...