Second amendment supporters know all too well the danger in banning any types of guns. While the left is quick to question why the average civilians may have a need for any particular model of firearm, this type of overreach instigates a slippery slope which soon infringes on the constitutional right to bear arms.

Devastatingly, this is already occurring in Massachusetts where a federal court made a traitorous ruling that rifles such as the AR-15 are not protected under the second amendment as they are similar to guns used for military service.

Filed in the District of Massachusetts United States District Court, Judge William Youngdrafted a 47-page ‘opinion’ to deny a claim which asserted that the MassachusettsAssault Weapons Ban is in direct violation of the Constitution.

Under the law, ‘assault weapons’ such as ArmaLite rifles were banned, including models which could be considered ‘duplicates’ or ‘copies,’ though the definitions listed were admittedly vague.

Of course, the ban also extended to “large capacity magazines.”

For some reason, however, any firearms “owned prior to September 13, 1994 were grandfathered in” under the law.

Due to its broad nature, it was determined necessary in the law’s infancy to clarify what the legislation meant in relation to what is considered an ‘assault weapon.’

Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey released an enforcement notice in July 2016 which declared any gun with “internal functional components [that] are substantially similar in construction and configuration to those of an enumerated weapon” is an ‘assault weapon’ and that such regulation would be implemented on July 20, 2016.

While it is a ridiculous law in itself, the plaintiffs’ complaint, filed in January 2017, argued that such legislation violates due process as it considers “retroactive enforcement rather than future enforcement.”

However, this claim was quickly dismissed, as the court ruled that “the notice lacked a binding effect.”

Unfortunately, due process aside, the most concerning factor about the Massachusetts law is that it blatantly threatens citizens’ constitutional rights. All it took for guns such as AR-15s to be banned was a liberal court which took it upon itself to decide what types of guns are appropriate for the average person to own.

Even more dangerous, it is an unfortunate example of democrats misinterpreting the Constitution so that it meets their agenda.

Under the law, such ‘assault weapons’ may be banned if they are determined to be “most useful for military service,” yet it continued that the court will not use a gun model’s present-day popularity in determining whether law-abiding citizens may legally own them.

However, again, as is the case in many gun-grabbing efforts, the definition of an ‘assault weapon’ varies depending on the liberal’s agenda. This is threatening to gun owners, as a broad definition can soon apply to a multitude of gun models; it simply depends on who is asked.

The Massachusetts law is no different, as it states that it “provides a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice as to what is prohibited.” Considering that most liberals have an unfair way of thinking and that their intelligence is often questionable, this could virtually apply to any gun with special features or greater magazine capacities.

As if the ban were not insulting enough to American law, it also mentioned Justice Antonin Scalia as an argument for upholding gun laws.

Young opened a commentary claiming that the state of Massachusetts has the power to ban whatever types of weapons it determines necessary and encourages other states to do the same or else “leave them unregulated and available.”

He closes, calling such laws illustrative of a ‘democracy’ and saying “Justice Scalia would be proud.”

However, Scalia was a firearm enthusiast and would surely not have advocated for the recent gun-grabbing legislation.

It is interesting to see that the left views such legislative moves as a fight for true democracy but then also attempts the attack the Bill of Rights.

Arguably, if a weapon is determined to be useful in war, then that should make it even more fitting in its usefulness for the average civilian to possess in exercising the right to self-defense.

Thankfully, there is a chance for this ruling to be overturned, as it “may be appealed to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals.”

Considering that one blue state at a time is making it more difficult to be a legal gun owner and are literately singling out models of guns which have been used in massacres, it is not unreasonable for the average patriot to wish to be more heavily armed than ever before.

Unfortunately, Massachusetts is apparently not the place to exercise such rights, and the recent ruling makes it difficult to predict what it will ban next.