I don't know if FoxNews cherry-picked out of context quotes from the decision, as I haven't read the entire 47 pages yet, but if those are correct quotes and in context, that's some dumbass shit that judge is spewin'.  Either that or we are done as far as having anything remotely resembling an ordinary English meaning of the words "shall not be infringed". 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/06/massachusetts-ban-on-assault-weapons-doesnt-violate-2nd-amendment-judge-rules.html

Massachusetts ban on assault weapons doesn't violate 2nd Amendment, judge rules

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."

 [T]he judge pointed out that the design of semi-automatic AR-15's is based on guns "that were first manufactured for military purposes" and that the AR-15 is "common and well-known in the military." [ ]

"The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to 'bear arms,'" Young said.

* * * * *
Decision:

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2018/04/06/Worman%20dismissal-SJ%20ruling%204-6-18.pdf

If AWs are for the military only then why does law enforcement get them? We are not a military state. Police are not a branch of the military. They are not supposed to be militarized.
I whole heartedly support the role of the police, but if the law states military only, that includes them as well.
I like the tier system where the police have 20 round mags and we only get 10 round mags and only military has full auto rifles and 30 round mags.
Massachusetts is creating a military state.

Sets dangerous precedent for othe state cases. Scotus needs to address the 2a eventually, but without Ginsberg. 

Also with Youngs ruling, the 1st amendment does not apply to today's methods of free speech.

Name a firearm in common use today by the public that is not currently in use by, was never used by, nor based on the design for, the military.

I own a Sig P320.  Is that now considered a military firearm and no longer covered by the 2nd Amendment?  How about my 1911? My Mosin-Nagant rifles?  How about my Ruger 10/22, a rifle which is currently used by Israeli soldiers for border security?

Must be Springtime -- ignorance is in full bloom!

Name a firearm in common use today by the public that is not currently in use by, was never used by, nor based on the design for, the military.

I own a Sig P320.  Is that now considered a military firearm and no longer covered by the 2nd Amendment?  How about my 1911? My Mosin-Nagant rifles?  How about my Ruger 10/22, a rifle which is currently used by Israeli soldiers for border security?

Must be Springtime -- ignorance is in full bloom!

Jim Wallace of the Massachusetts Gun Owners Action League (GOAL) litigants in the case was on NRA Cam and Company today. He couldn't say much about the decision because his organization might appeal the case, but he did point out that the gist of the decision, other than the twisted interpretation of the Second Amendment and Heller, was that the Attorney General's office can interpret the law any way they want and the courts are in no position to question those interpretations. The MA law was not changed re which weapons were banned, all that changed was a new Attorney General (Maura Healey) who then announced that everyone possessing certain firearms had been in violation of the law for the past dozen years and now were criminals for possessing them. She said so, so it IS so. So said the court. 

https://www.nratv.com/series/cam-and-company/video/cam-and-company-2018-jim-wallace-court-rules-assault-weapons-not-protected-by-second-amendment/episode/cam-and-company-season-14-episode-68

Like I have long seen this issue. This is a good example. With this interesting debate again.