Blue states across the country have attempted to enact so-called "assault weapons" bans with the false claims that such bans will decrease gun violence. 

Some states, like Massachusetts, have passed such bills. But in every instance, the laws have been challenged by pro-Second Amendment groups who argue that the bills are unconstitutional.

Unfortunately for the law-abiding citizens of Massachusetts, a recent challenge to the state's assault weapons ban was quashed by a judge.

According to Bloomberg Law, Chief Judge Dennis Saylor of the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that a ban on the sale and possession of some semi-automatic firearms is "constitutional."

What happened?

The National Association for Gun Rights petitioned the court to stop the enforcement of the assault weapons ban in Massachusetts, citing a conflict with language in the Second Amendement.

Judge Saylor ultimately disagreed, writing in his ruling that the firearms in question "are unreasonably dangerous for ordinary purposes of self-defense due to their extreme lethality and high potential for collateral harm."

Bloomberg Law noted:

The US Supreme Court held last year in New York State Rifles & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen that state governments must prove a regulation would have been consistent with the nation’s historical regulation of firearms.

"The relevant history affirms the principle that in 1791, as now, there was a tradition of regulating ‘dangerous and unusual’ weapons—specifically, those that are not reasonably necessary for self-defense," the ruling added.

Judge Saylor, who probably doesn't know a gun from a potato, wouldn't accept the argument that AR-15-style rifles are "suitable" for self-defense.

"The features of modern assault weapons—particularly the AR-15’s radical increases in muzzle velocity, range, accuracy, and functionality—along with the types of injuries they can inflict are so different from colonial firearms that the two are not reasonably comparable," Saylor wrote.

Social media reacts

The decision created a firestorm of controversy across social media, with many users noting the outright unconstitutionality of the law.

"Because nothing says "constitutional rights" quite like denying citizens the ability to own a certain type of weapon, as if this were somehow a more effective solution than addressing the root causes of gun violence in America," one X user wrote.

Another X user wrote, "That's because there's no such thing as an assault weapon."

Only time will tell if the issue makes it to the high court where, hopefully, conservative justices end this ridiculousness.