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: 9323
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
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 4.
#2. To: misterwhite, *Bang List* (#0)
Federal courts gun grabbing ping. This is what Obama meant by 'doing everything in his power.'
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%. : )
#12. To: TooConservative (#4)
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...
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.
She agrees:
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestThomas 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.”
#4. To: redleghunter, sneakypete, BobCeleste, Don (#2)
Federal courts gun grabbing ping. This is what Obama meant by 'doing everything in his power.'
Replies to Comment # 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?
#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"
#34. To: TooConservative (#4)
"Or restrict the assault rifles to a 5+1 capacity"
End Trace Mode for Comment # 4.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]