NEW YORK _ Massachusetts' beefed-up ban on assault weapons doesn't violate the Second Amendment of the Constitution, a U.S. judge ruled, handing a victory to gun-control advocates seeking to pass such a law nationwide following a spate of deadly mass shootings.
"The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional rights to 'bear arms,'" U.S. District Judge William Young wrote in a decision Thursday in Boston, dismissing a lawsuit over the state law.
Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey was sued by a gun-rights group in response to her July 2016 enforcement notice that broadened the definition of "copies or duplicates" of AR-15 and AK-47 models that are banned under the state's 1998 assault-weapon bans.
Healey's review was in response to the June 2016 shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Fla., where 49 people were killed by a gunman brandishing a semi-automatic rifle and a semi-automatic pistol. In a statement Friday, Healey said the decision vindicates the right of people to protect themselves from "weapons of war."
"Strong gun laws save lives, and we will not be intimidated by the gun lobby in our efforts to end the sale of assault weapons and protect our communities and schools," Healey said in a statement. "Families across the country should take heart in this victory."
James Campbell, the lawyer for plaintiffs including the Gun Owners' Action League Inc., didn't immediately return a call for comment on the ruling.
The term "assault weapons" is non-technical and "entirely fabricated" to politicize the most popular types of guns in the U.S., according to the complaint.
"Healey unilaterally decreed that thousands of Massachusetts residents are suddenly criminals simply for having exercised their Second Amendment rights," the plaintiffs said in their complaint.
