"Connecticut’s semi-automatic weapon ban was signed into law on April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook massacre"

I see. Because one person used one semi-auto rifle to kill people, all semi- auto rifles should be banned.

And if one Muslim kills people?

I see. Because one person used one semi-auto rifle to kill people, all semi- auto rifles should be banned.

California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Connecticut and New York have variations of assault weapons bans.

And misterwhite has approved the power of those States to ban such weapons...

Why?

Supreme Court upholds N.Y., Conn. bans on semi-automatic weapons by not hearing appeals

A Supreme Court denial of cert does not mean it decided to uphold the lower court. It means the Court, for whatever unstated reason, decided not to hear the case. The vast majority of petitions for cert are denied. As a result, the opinion of the lower court stands in the 2nd Circuit only.

This is what the 2nd Circuit said. Heller and McDonald are obfuscated at pages 19-28 of the 57-page opinion.

http://ccdl.us/blog/uploads/2015/10/Shew-v-Malloy-207-1-opinion-CCDL.pdf

New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc., et al. v. Cuomo, et al.

Connecticut Citizens’ Defense League, et al. v. Malloy, et al.

2nd Cir., Nos. 14-36-cv (Lead); 14-37-cv (XAP), (19 Oct 2015)

Before: CABRANES, LOHIER, and DRONEY, Circuit Judges.

Before the Court are two appeals challenging gun?control legislation enacted by the New York and Connecticut legislatures in the wake of the 2012 mass murders at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. The New York and Connecticut laws at issue prohibit the possession of certain semiautomatic “assault weapons” and large-capacity magazines. Following the entry of summary judgment in favor of defendants on the central claims in both the Western District of New York (William M. Skretny, Chief Judge) and the District of Connecticut (Alfred V. Covello, Judge), plaintiffs in both suits now press two arguments on appeal. First, they challenge the constitutionality of the statutes under the Second Amendment; and second, they challenge certain provisions of the statutes as unconstitutionally vague. Defendants in the New York action also cross-appeal the District Court’s invalidation of New York’s seven?round load limit and voiding of two statutory provisions as facially unconstitutionally vague.

We hold that the core provisions of the New York and Connecticut laws prohibiting possession of semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines do not violate the Second Amendment, and that the challenged individual provisions are not void for vagueness. The particular provision of New York’s law regulating load limits, however, does not survive the requisite scrutiny. One further specific provision—Connecticut’s prohibition on the non?semiautomatic Remington 7615—unconstitutionally infringes upon the Second Amendment right. Accordingly, we AFFIRM in part the judgment of the District Court for the District of Connecticut insofar as it upheld the prohibition of semiautomatic assault weapons and large?capacity magazines, and REVERSE in part its holding with respect to the Remington 7615. With respect to the judgment of the District Court for the Western District of New York, we REVERSE in part certain vagueness holdings, and we otherwise AFFIRM that judgment insofar as it upheld the prohibition of semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines and invalidated the load limit.

To: cranky (#0)

Supreme Court upholds N.Y., Conn. bans on semi-automatic weapons by not hearing appeals

A Supreme Court denial of cert does not mean it decided to uphold the lower court. It means the Court, for whatever unstated reason, decided not to hear the case. The vast majority of petitions for cert are denied. As a result, the opinion of the lower court stands in the 2nd Circuit only. - nolu

And, as a result, the opinion of the USSC stands in the 2nd Circuit only.

Opinions of the SCOTUS, and lower courts, do NOT change our Constitution, they only reflect opinions as they stand at the time, and to the case at hand. -- We do not lose our rights as a result of such opinions. Opinions can be changed by later courts.

Our rights are inalienable/unalienable.

Our rights are inalienable/unalienable.

Tell that to a person in CT who wants to buy a semi-auto rifle.

Our rights are inalienable/unalienable.

Tell that to a person in CT who wants to buy a semi-auto rifle.

No need. They are already well aware that creeps exist that try to take them away.

They're also well aware that they can buy whatever they want in adjoining States, or on the black market, and ignore their state 'law'.

Our rights are inalienable/unalienable, and stupid laws/opinions will never take them away.

And if one Muslim kills people?

all muslims should be banned, Dump has said it already

A Supreme Court denial of cert does not mean it decided to uphold the lower court. It means the Court, for whatever unstated reason, decided not to hear the case.

You don't expect non yella written articles posted by Paultards, do ya?

A Supreme Court denial of cert does not mean it decided to uphold the lower court. It means the Court, for whatever unstated reason, decided not to hear the case. The vast majority of petitions for cert are denied. As a result, the opinion of the lower court stands in the 2nd Circuit only.

I agree. I also believe that, given the current makeup of the US Supreme Court, this outcome may be for the better. At least now, the possibility exists to try again once Scalia is replaced, hopefully with favorable results; whereas, if the Court had agreed to hear the case now, the result might very possibly be either a 4/4 tie or a 5/3 ruling against the plaintiffs. A tie might not be terrible; but, it would be hard to overcome an outright loss. So, waiting until there are once again nine justices might be well worth the delay.

At least now, the possibility exists to try again once Scalia is replaced, hopefully with favorable results; whereas, if the Court had agreed to hear the case now, the result might very possibly be either a 4/4 tie or a 5/3 ruling against the plaintiffs.

As four of the justices (Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito) who formed the majority in Heller and McDonald are still there, it is likely the Court would have split 4-4. Foreseeing deadlock may have been a contributing factor in not hearing the case.