[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race"

He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage

The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom!

"Kamala’s Inane Talking Points"

"The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics"

Easy Drywall Patch

Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast

In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind"

Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’

Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens

Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer?

hurricanes and heat waves are Worse

'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic

Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump

IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons

Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training

The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses

Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists

Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general

Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep

Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA.

Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report

Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence.

Tenn. AG reveals ICE released thousands of ‘murderers and rapists’ from detention centers into US streets

Kamala Harris Touts Mass Amnesty Offering Fast-Tracked Citizenship to Nearly Every Illegal Alien in U.S.

Migration Crisis Fueled Rise in Tuberculosis Cases Study Finds

"They’re Going to Try to Kill Trump Again"

"Dems' Attempts at Power Grab Losing Their Grip"

"Restoring a ‘Great Moderation’ in Fiscal Policy"

"As attacks intensify, Trump becomes more popular"

Posting Articles Now Working Here

Another Test

Testing

Kamala Harris, reparations, and guaranteed income

Did Mudboy Slim finally kill this place?

"Why Young Americans Are Not Taught about Evil"

"New Rules For Radicals — How To Reinvent Kamala Harris"

"Harris’ problem: She’s a complete phony"

Hurricane Beryl strikes Bay City (TX)

Who Is ‘Destroying Democracy In Darkness?’

‘Kamalanomics’ is just ‘Bidenomics’ but dumber

Even The Washington Post Says Kamala's 'Price Control' Plan is 'Communist'

Arthur Ray Hines, "Sneakypete", has passed away.

No righT ... for me To hear --- whaT you say !

"Walz’s Fellow Guardsmen Set the Record Straight on Veep Candidate’s Military Career: ‘He Bailed Out’ "

"Kamala Harris Selects Progressive Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as Running Mate"

"The Teleprompter Campaign"

Good Riddance to Ismail Haniyeh

"Pagans in Paris"

"Liberal groupthink makes American life creepy and could cost Democrats the election".


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

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: 10147
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  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 27.

#1. To: All (#0)

"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."

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?

misterwhite  posted on  2015-12-07   10:51:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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: ----

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

tpaine  posted on  2015-12-07   13:35:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: tpaine (#5)

Back in the late 1800s, a supreme court decision ruled that the only guns the Second Amendment applied to is military type arms.

Don  posted on  2015-12-07   14:00:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

So? Cite the decision and make your point.

tpaine  posted on  2015-12-07   14:24:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: tpaine (#7)

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.

Don  posted on  2015-12-07   16:23:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

Wiki: Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, [3rd paragraph]

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]

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.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-12-07   16:41:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#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"

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".

misterwhite  posted on  2015-12-08   10:11:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: misterwhite (#22)

What happened to the decision?

The Court. They keep changing their prevailing legal theories about the Second.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-12-08   10:43:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 27.

#33. To: TooConservative (#27)

"The Court. They keep changing their prevailing legal theories about the Second."

I didn't know stare decisis was optional.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-12-08 11:00:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 27.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com