Cato Institute, NRA-ILA and Others Agree Massachusetts “Assault Weapons” Ban Unconstitutional

by
posted on November 14, 2019
** When you buy products through the links on our site, we may earn a commission that supports NRA's mission to protect, preserve and defend the Second Amendment. **
cato-inst-wiki-commons.jpg

Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

The Cato Institute recently filed an amicus brief in support of a U.S. Supreme Court petition against an unconstitutional Massachusetts firearms ban.

Currently, Massachusetts law prohibits the ownership of “assault weapons.” This definition includes the “most popular semi-automatic rifles in the country, as well as ‘copies or duplicates’ of any such weapons,” according to the Cato Institute. The law was passed in 2004 by then-Gov. Mitt Romney, who said semi-automatic firearms “are not made for recreation or self-defense.”

A group of plaintiffs challenged the ban only to see both a federal trial judge and appellate court – which included former Justice David Souter – upheld the ban. The plaintiffs are now asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their case, arguing that the lower courts has improperly applied the “common use” test from the court’s District of Columbia v. Heller decision.

The institute joined the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) and the Gun Owners’ Action League (GOAL), an NRA Massachusetts state affiliate and plaintiff in the case: Worman v. Healey. The U.S. Supreme Court will decide later this fall whether or not to hear the landmark case.

The NRA believes this case embodies a critical moment for America’s gun owners. With 2020 presidential candidates and members of Congress encouraging the confiscation of commonly-owned firearms—like the AR-15—it is vital that the Supreme Court remind politicians that they swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, which includes our sacred Second Amendment,” said Jason Ouimet, NRA-ILA executive director.

Latest

PLCAA in marble
PLCAA in marble

Cynical Strategies To Subvert The Protection Of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act

Since President George W. Bush signed the bipartisan Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) into law on Oct. 26, 2005, those bent on civilian disarmament have sought to bypass the legislation’s clear commands. In fact, 20 years later, gunmakers were fending off a frivolous nuisance suit from the city of Gary, Ind., filed in 1999, despite the PLCAA and state-analogue legislation.

The New York Times Tries to Explain the Drop in Crime

The New York Times is attempting to explain away the Trump administration's success at lowering crime rates with these explanations.

Winner-Take-All Elections Mark A New Chapter In The Second Amendment

Will a meaningful Second Amendment survive in Virginia? That this is even an open question shows how dramatically one election can reshape a state when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms.

Part 1: How the Mainstream Media Lost Touch With America—The Takeover by the Elites

Why is so much of the mainstream, legacy or corporate media opposed to our right to keep and bear arms? This three-part series attempts to answer these critical questions—understanding, after all, leads to solutions.

President’s Column | NRA Focus On The Vision

I can’t believe it’s been seven months since I was elected NRA president, and I’m already composing my eighth President’s Column. The officers never fully anticipated or appreciated the immense challenges we faced when elected.

Standing Guard | The NRA is Strong

The strength of the NRA is, and has always been, our membership. Without our millions of members, we would not be able to effectively rally behind elections for pro-freedom politicians; just as importantly, if not for our large membership, our representatives in office would not feel the same urgency to listen to us in this constitutional republic.

Interests



Get the best of America's 1st Freedom delivered to your inbox.