U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: Supreme Court won’t review laws banning assault weapons
Source:
The Washington Post
URL Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli ... 5-94f0-9eeaff906ef3_story.html
Published: Dec 7, 2015
Author: Robert Barnes
Post Date: 2015-12-07 10:44:55 by misterwhite
Keywords: None
Views: 9288
Comments: 41
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to review the ability of cities and states to prohibit semiautomatic high-capacity assault weapons that have been used in some of the nation’s most deadly recent mass shootings. The justices decided not to reconsider a lower court’s decision in a case from the city of Highland Park, Ill., near Chicago. But seven states — Maryland, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York — have similar bans, and all of the prohibitions remain in place. Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia said the court should review the ban, which “flouts” the court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence. They criticized lower court decisions that have allowed jurisdictions and impose what Thomas called “categorical bans on firearms that millions of Americans commonly own for lawful purposes.” The court’s action Monday continues a pattern. After deciding in District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 that the Second Amendment provides the right for an individual to keep a weapon in the home, the court has avoided all cases that might clarify if that right is more expansive. Gun rights advocates say cities and states continue to put unreasonable restrictions on the constitutional right. But the court has not yet found a case it thinks requires its intervention. That could be because a majority of the court thinks the restrictions are legally justified or because the court is closely divided and neither side is sure of what the outcome of taking a case might be. By its inaction, the court has left in place lower court rulings that allow restrictions on carrying a weapon outside the home, among other things, and on the kinds of guns that can be prohibited. Highland Park cited shootings in Aurora, Colo., and at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut for prohibiting the semiautomatic weapons. President Obama in his address to the nation Sunday night called on Congress to make it harder to sell what he called “powerful assault weapons.” The decision that the Supreme Court decided not to review came from a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. That ruling noted a statement in the Heller decision that said legislatures retained the ability to prohibit “dangerous and unusual” weapons, and Judge Frank Easterbrook said the guns Highland Park banned qualified. “Why else are they the weapons of choice in mass shootings?” he wrote. He said a ban may not prevent mass shootings “but it may reduce the carnage if a mass shooting occurs.” An appeals court in New York also upheld the bans in that state and Connecticut. Gun rights advocates and 24 states had told the Supreme Court it needed to get involved, because the bans violated the intent of Heller. They said the term “assault weapons” was anti-gun propaganda and there was nothing unusual about the guns. They include “some of the most commonplace firearms in the nation, including the immensely popular AR-15, which is the best-selling rifle type in the United States,” said the brief from Arie Friedman of Highland Park and the Illinois State Rifle Association. Thomas and Scalia agreed with that. “The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting,” Thomas wrote. “Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons.” The court has privately debated whether to take the Highland Park case for months. Today’s announcement that the challengers’ petition would not be granted reflects that Thomas and Scalia could not persuade fellow conservatives who made up the majority in Heller to take the case. It is Friedman v. Highland Park.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
Of course. According to the decision in Heller, the second amendment only protects guns suitable for self-defense in the home. And that certainly doesn't include assault weapons. SO SAYS THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. Isn't is great to have 5 justices interpret the second amendment? This is what everyone wanted, REMEMBER?
Federal courts gun grabbing ping. This is what Obama meant by 'doing everything in his power.'
Who needs original intent when we can have judicial caprice instead?
Obama would love to use his no-fly list and terror watchlists as a way to overrule state/local gun ownership laws. But he would settle for limiting magazine capacity. If we look at an AR-15 or AK-47 or SKS, we always see the 30-rd magazine. Do you need 30 shots to shoot a deer? Or a varmint? Or to realistically repel a home invasion? Do you honestly picture yourself firing 30 times inside your home at armed invaders or a local kook or a crazed family member? Does anyone really expect to need those 30 rounds? This will likely be the soft approach to gun control. And we can see the Supremes aren't exactly eager to weigh in on unlimited ammo capacity as an inherent Second Amendment right. This Court, having advanced CCW and shall-issue law with the Second, may choose to allow many limitations on magazine capacity. Will those AR-15/AK-47/SKS weapons be as valuable to gun owners if they only have a 10-rd capacity and if standard hunting rifles have the same 10-rd capacity? Anyway, I expect to see more of this from Obama and Hitlery and the Left, sort of a distraction argument as they pursue limitations. There is nothing more scary with an AR-15 over a hunting rifle with the same capacity. Or restrict the assault rifles to a 5+1 capacity, similar to other available .223 Remington rifles. This is the smart strategy for Hitlery to take. And she could rake in money from Bloomberg and other antigunners with that as a campaign theme. She could go after the Aurora theater shooting, Newtown, San Bernardino, etc. as examples of large-capacity magazine massacres. She doesn't have to sell the NRA, just enough soccer mommies. And there is a certain wing of the NRA that does not like large capacity or military style weapons. We all know this. It probably is as large as 20% of NRA's membership. In GOA, it would be 0%. : )
SO SAYS THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. Isn't is great to have 5 justices interpret the second amendment? This is what everyone wanted, REMEMBER? -- misterwhite 'The Five' have issued an opinion, nothing more. --- An opinion YOU agree with. -- Why is that? Below, (from FR) is the true opinion of misterwhite/robertpaulsen: ----
Back in the late 1800s, a supreme court decision ruled that the only guns the Second Amendment applied to is military type arms. Psalm 37 PRAY FOR PARIS
So? Cite the decision and make your point.
It was a long time ago and I don't remember nor care enough about it to look it up. Just forget I posted it.
Psalm 37 PRAY FOR PARIS
Wiki: Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, [3rd paragraph] The Court seems to take up the Second only once or twice in a century. Heller was such a decision and the courts will chew on that for years to come.
Thanks. That was a unique decision.
Psalm 37 PRAY FOR PARIS
'The Five' have issued an opinion, nothing more. --- An opinion YOU agree with. -- Why is that? Below, (from FR) is the true opinion of misterwhite/robertpaulsen: ----
I can honestly see myself firing 30 times OUTSIDE my home in a social meltdown. -- Which even you must realize can happen at anytime, -- if the power goes out for more than a few days. I agree, we will very likely see federal ammo and hi-cap 'regulations' (really infringements) at some point soon. -- And we will also see a black market. - Just what we need, more scofflaws. California all ready has the 10-rd rule.. -- It sure worked in San Berdoo...
And when did Americans even in a riot situation last need to fire 30 rounds to defend themselves or their homes? I think you sense the weakness there. This is what Obongo and Hitlery will try to exploit.
I don't think those idiots realize how many magazines there are that hold over 10 rounds, but my guess is they think people will turn them in instead of hiding them... Oh wait, never mind... Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
And when in American history has such a scenario actually occurred? And how many times has a 30-rd mag firearm or 15-rd pistol mags been used to massacre people (SanB, Aurora, Newtown, etc.)? You're making a losing argument with the soccer mommies. You will no doubt be cheered by the RKBAers but you already had all of them to start with. So it isn't actually a persuasive argument with swing voters. Which won't slow down the Left at all. They'll simply demand that all mags with more than 10-rd mags (or 5+1 capacity) be outlawed with severe penalties for anyone caught with one. They'd settle for that and declare a victory.
I can honestly see myself firing 30 times OUTSIDE my home in a social meltdown. -- Which even you must realize can happen at anytime, -- if the power goes out for more than a few days. Never yet, seeing that our society has never been this dependant on a (very vulnerable) electric power grid. -- Are you trying to say a meltdown can't happen? And if they're banned, how long will it be before the crazies will find that bombs or Molotov cocktails, etc are quite effective for mass murder? -- Are you really claiming that such bans will solve anything? And it's a persuasive argument with you? California all ready has the 10-rd rule.. -- It sure worked in San Berdoo... Yep, as I said at #12, and you ignored, we will very likely see federal ammo and hi-cap 'regulations' (really infringements) at some point soon. -- And we will also see a black market. - Just what we need, more scofflaws. --- -- So, - I guess, just like misterwhite, (the pragmatist) you can see gun control coming, but just don't give a damn, and will accept the infringements?
Rehashing your previous arguments doesn't really add much. I'm not talking about persuading you or me. I'm talking about the soccer moms and the weakest arm of the NRA, the we're-just-hunters-and-don't-like-scary-guns crowd. NRA has done a lot of work to keep the hunters-only bunch on the bandwagon but they are by no means reliable. Those swing voters are what can kill your gun rights. Especially with the Court in a 4+4+1 configuration on everything.
Do you need a 4-bedroom home? Do you need an $80,000 car? Do you need a $1500 suit? If you were honest you'd admit you don't need these things. But you want them. Perhaps you can tell us why we shouldn't want 30-round magazines.
30 rounds is too much. Make it 10 rounds. No, make it 5+1. I'm waiting for your next post. Tell these guys they can defend their life and property with only 5+1 rounds.
A weak argument until you can demonstrate that those things kill dozens of helpless people in a massacre on a recurring basis. Like tpaine, you do enjoy preaching to the converted.
Those "roof Koreans" look just like some photos from the old L.A. riots to me. Including the building they're on.
To repeat. ... the states could limit any weapon types NOT having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". What happened to the decision? Certainly an AR-15 HAS a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".
It is. But the photo was used in a satirical Craigs List posting in Baltimore.
Just demonstrating the difference between want and need. We're saying we want a 30-round magazine. Your strawman response is we don't need a 30-round magazine. Why strawman? We never said we "needed" one.
Yep, as I said at #12, and you ignored, we will very likely see federal ammo and hi-cap 'regulations' (really infringements) at some point soon. -- And we will also see a black market. - Just what we need, more scofflaws. --- -- So, - I guess, just like misterwhite, (the pragmatist) you can see gun control coming, but just don't give a damn, and will accept the infringements? Rehash,my ass.. I'm continuing to answer and address your defeatist remarks. I well aware of the political realities, but I'm not pragmatic about them. Why are you? - Why not continue to fight for your gun rights?
OK. Then what legislation would make them happy? Would those new gun laws be any more effective than the 20,000 already on the books? And most importantly, would those new gun laws have stopped any of the recent shootings? The answer is no. Meaning that after a few more shootings, they would say we need more laws. And more laws. And more laws. Liberals love incrementalism. You know that.
The Court. They keep changing their prevailing legal theories about the Second.
Far more likely is that the feds will strike at the ability of gun shops and ammo sellers to do any commercial banking. That is a template they've already demoed with some success. No, they won't get any ammo restrictions voted through this Congress and probably not the next one.
You give soccer mommies and the weak sisters on the NRA bandwagon too much credit. The real threat will come when they reach a threshold of Something Must Be Done voters. It will come fast when it comes, like the sodomy marriage laws and court decisions.
Once you admit that, the gungrabbers are winning on high-capacity mags.
Using what as an argument?
You mean, "Something-must-be-done-that-involves-confiscation-or-banning- guns". What if the "something" that must be done is arming the citizens and allowing them to carry anywhere and everywhere?
I didn't know stare decisis was optional.
She agrees:
It isn't. Until the Court suddenly decides it is.
Yep.
It would be ironic if the court said there was precedent for ignoring stare decisis.
This year's decisions would give it to 'em.
Unless ...
They could call it substantive due precedent.
Comments (41 - 41) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest"By its inaction, the court has left in place lower court rulings that allow restrictions on carrying a weapon outside the home, among other things, and on the kinds of guns that can be prohibited."
#2. To: misterwhite, *Bang List* (#0)
Thomas and Scalia agreed with that. “The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting,” Thomas wrote. “Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons.”
#3. To: misterwhite (#1)
This is what everyone wanted, REMEMBER?
#4. To: redleghunter, sneakypete, BobCeleste, Don (#2)
Federal courts gun grabbing ping. This is what Obama meant by 'doing everything in his power.'
#5. To: Y'ALL, misterwhite favors gun control (#1)
According to the decision in Heller, the second amendment only protects guns suitable for self-defense in the home. And that certainly doesn't include assault weapons.
You believe that the rights of the individual reign supreme (as long as they do not violate the rights of others). I believe the rights of the individual need to be tempered with the overall good of society in mind.--- Mine is a more pragmatic approach. Yours has the appearance of anarchy. --- 48 posted on 09/22/2003 7:30:14 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
#6. To: tpaine (#5)
#7. To: Don (#6)
Back in the late 1800s, a supreme court decision ruled that the only guns the Second Amendment applied to is military type arms.
#8. To: tpaine (#7)
#9. To: Don, tpaine (#8)
It was a long time ago and I don't remember nor care enough about it to look it up. Just forget I posted it.
In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".[10][11]
#10. To: TooConservative (#9)
#11. To: Y'ALL, misterwhite, favors gun control (#5)
According to the decision in Heller, the second amendment only protects guns suitable for self-defense in the home. And that certainly doesn't include assault weapons. SO SAYS THE U.S. SUPREME COURT.
Isn't is great to have 5 justices interpret the second amendment? This is what everyone wanted, REMEMBER? -- misterwhite
You (tpaine) believe that the rights of the individual reign supreme (as long as they do not violate the rights of others). I believe the rights of the individual need to be tempered with the overall good of society in mind.--- Mine is a more pragmatic approach. Yours has the appearance of anarchy. --- 48 posted on 09/22/2003 7:30:14 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
#12. To: TooConservative (#4)
Do you need 30 shots to shoot a deer? Or a varmint? Or to realistically repel a home invasion? Do you honestly picture yourself firing 30 times inside your home at armed invaders or a local kook or a crazed family member? Does anyone really expect to need those 30 rounds?
This will likely be the soft approach to gun control. And we can see the Supremes aren't exactly eager to weigh in on unlimited ammo capacity as an inherent Second Amendment right. This Court, having advanced CCW and shall-issue law with the Second, may choose to allow many limitations on magazine capacity.
Will those AR-15/AK-47/SKS weapons be as valuable to gun owners if they only have a 10-rd capacity and if standard hunting rifles have the same 10-rd capacity?
#13. To: tpaine (#12)
I can honestly see myself firing 30 times OUTSIDE my home in a social meltdown. -- Which even you must realize can happen at anytime, -- if the power goes out for more than a few days.
#14. To: tpaine (#12)
California all ready has the 10-rd rule.. -- It sure worked in San Berdoo...
#15. To: tpaine (#12)
I can honestly see myself firing 30 times OUTSIDE my home in a social meltdown. -- Which even you must realize can happen at anytime, -- if the power goes out for more than a few days.
California all ready has the 10-rd rule.. -- It sure worked in San Berdoo...
#16. To: TooConservative, misterwhite, Y'ALL (#15)
(Edited)
And when in American history has such a scenario actually occurred?
And how many times has a 30-rd mag firearm or 15-rd pistol mags been used to massacre people (SanB, Aurora, Newtown, etc.)?
You're making a losing argument with the soccer mommies. You will no doubt be cheered by the RKBAers but you already had all of them to start with. So it isn't actually a persuasive argument with swing voters.
Which won't slow down the Left at all. They'll simply demand that all mags with more than 10-rd mags (or 5+1 capacity) be outlawed with severe penalties for anyone caught with one. They'd settle for that and declare a victory.
#17. To: tpaine (#16)
#18. To: TooConservative (#4)
"Do you need 30 shots to shoot a deer?"
#19. To: TooConservative (#4)
(Edited)
"Will those AR-15/AK-47/SKS weapons be as valuable to gun owners if they only have a 10-rd capacity ... Or restrict the assault rifles to a 5+1 ca ca ca ca ca capacity"
#20. To: misterwhite (#18)
Do you need a 4-bedroom home? Do you need an $80,000 car? Do you need a $1500 suit?
#21. To: misterwhite (#19)
30 rounds is too much. Make it 10 rounds. No, make it 5+1. I'm waiting for your next post. Tell these guys they can defend their life and property with only 5+1 rounds.
#22. To: TooConservative (#9)
"In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"
#23. To: TooConservative (#21)
"Those "roof Koreans" look just like some photos from the old L.A. riots to me."
#24. To: TooConservative (#20)
"A weak argument until you can demonstrate that those things kill dozens of helpless people in a massacre on a recurring basis."
#25. To: TooConservative (#17)
Rehashing your previous arguments doesn't really add much.
I'm not talking about persuading you or me. I'm talking about the soccer moms and the weakest arm of the NRA, the we're-just-hunters-and-don't-like-scary-guns crowd. NRA has done a lot of work to keep the hunters-only bunch on the bandwagon but they are by no means reliable. ---- Those swing voters are what can kill your gun rights. Especially with the Court in a 4+4+1 configuration on everything.
#26. To: TooConservative (#17)
"Those swing voters are what can kill your gun rights."
#27. To: misterwhite (#22)
What happened to the decision?
#28. To: tpaine (#25)
Yep, as I said at #12, and you ignored, we will very likely see federal ammo and hi-cap 'regulations' (really infringements) at some point soon.
#29. To: misterwhite (#26)
(Edited)
Would those new gun laws be any more effective than the 20,000 already on the books? And most importantly, would those new gun laws have stopped any of the recent shootings?
#30. To: misterwhite (#24)
Why strawman? We never said we "needed" one.
#31. To: TooConservative (#30)
"Once you admit that, the gungrabbers are winning on high-capacity mags."
#32. To: TooConservative (#29)
"The real threat will come when they reach a threshold of Something Must Be Done voters."
#33. To: TooConservative (#27)
"The Court. They keep changing their prevailing legal theories about the Second."
#34. To: TooConservative (#4)
"Or restrict the assault rifles to a 5+1 capacity"
#35. To: misterwhite (#33)
I didn't know stare decisis was optional.
#36. To: TooConservative (#35)
Until the Court suddenly decides it is.
#37. To: TooConservative, Roscoe (#35)
"It isn't. Until the Court suddenly decides it is."
#38. To: misterwhite (#37)
It would be ironic if the court said there was precedent for ignoring stare decisis.
#39. To: Roscoe (#38)
"This year's decisions would give it to 'em."
#40. To: misterwhite (#39)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]