SCOTUS declines assault weapons ban case - how bad is this?

[Aim1]

Looks like 2 of the judges wanted to take the case and probably rule in favor of semi-automatic weapons. Apparently others didn't. We'd better hope that the next president doesn't add an anti-gun judge to SCOTUS otherwise we are in big trouble.








http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/supreme-court-leaves-assault-weapons-ban-intact

Supreme Court leaves assault weapons ban intact

12/07/15 10:59 AM By Pete Williams

The U.S. Supreme Court Monday handed a legal victory to advocates of banning firearms commonly known as assault weapons.

By leaving a suburban Chicago gun control law intact, the court gave a boost to efforts aimed at imposing such bans elsewhere, at a time of renewed interest in gun regulation after recent mass shootings.

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas said the Supreme Court should have taken the case. Thomas wrote their dissent, said the court should have granted review to prevent the appeals court “from relegating the Second Amendment to a second-class right.”

 

[Tommygunn]

Central to the dispute was a 2008 Supreme Court decision that for the first time said the Constitution’s Second Amendment provides an individual right to own a handgun for self defense. While it was a watershed ruling for gun rights, it also said “dangerous and unusual weapons” can be restricted.

In today's world I would consider neither the AR-15 or the "AK-47" unusual, so one might argue they WOULD be protected by the 2A under Heller.
"Dangerous?" Here's a thought; ALL FIREARMS ARE DANGEROUS! --- even the flintlock muskets our founders used to fight off the redcoats. Not sure how that works into Heller though. Perhaps it should read "unusually dangerous," but even that begs for a definition.

This isn't a death-knell for ownership of "assault weapons," we'll have to see what comes of it.

 

[MachIVshooter]

SCOTUS refuses a lot of cases for a lot of reasons. If they took every case that people appealed up the chain after getting an undesirable answer from lower courts, there'd be literally millions of cases on the docket with some of the most ridiculously trivial content you could possibly imagine.

We'd better hope that the next president doesn't add an anti-gun judge to SCOTUS otherwise we are in big trouble.

Presidents don't just get to alter the bench as they see fit. Remember, SCOTUS justices are appointed for life; unless one of them leaves the bench or dies, there'll be no new appointment, no matter what a president or congress wants.

 

[gopguy]

MSNBC is reading more into the story than what is warranted. That said we have to make sure the next President appointing people to the US Supreme Court have not proudly said the NRA is one of their enemies, as we saw in the Democrat debate.

 

[gun_with_a_view]

SCOTUS already decided the issue in Heller in establishing "popularity" of firearms as the standard of review. The more popular the guns, the more they belong in the hands and in the homes of the public at large. However, most lower courts remain unconvinced.

 

[Red Wind]

I'm not concerned about it. As was said, the SCOTUS has thousands of cases to consider, and AK's, AR's and SKS's are in common use.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

MSNBC is definitely reading more into this than warranted.

Also remember: our side won before SCOTUS in Heller 2008 and MacDonald 2010 by having good clearly defined cases with good plaintiffs and lawyers who raised the right points.

 

[TimSr]

I'm used to seeing the SCOTUS not hear a lot of cases, but I'm not used to seeing dissenting opinions on cases not heard.

 

[gbw]

It's very bad. The Court, including 3 of the 5 Heller justices, affirms local/state governments right to very wide latitude to ban what they want and still pass 2a constitutional muster within Heller.

Critical that the next president be on our side, it is very likely he/she will appoint 2 or more justices over the next 8 years.

 

[BSA1]

For now it remains a State's right issue. Whether it is a good or bad ruling depends on what State you live in.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Much to do about nothing.

If you think the SC is going to affirm your right to own an AR you need a reality check. They may however take it away. Let sleeping dogs lie.

If you live in a socialist state where the elite make the rules you may have to bow down from time to time. 10A.

 

[yokel]

We sorely need an affirmed ruling that takes into account the fundamental purpose and principal intent of the Second Amendment instead of just defense of one's hearth and home or waterfowl hunting!

 

[MIL-DOT]

I agree with justices Thomas and Scalia, this was significant. By not hearing and overturning the lower court ruling, they in essence validated it. More and more cities and states have been given the green-light to ban these weapons,(and they surely will) and the SCOTUS has indicated it won't stand in the way.
Whether you see it or not, this is in fact VERY bad.

 

[Schwing]

For now it remains a State's right issue. Whether it is a good or bad ruling depends on what State you live in.

BSA1 beat me to this.

I find myself torn on this as my state is extremely gun friendly. I still feel it is not constitutional in states like CA and NY but my vote is no good in those states.

I know it is an uphill battle but, under current conditions, only the voters in those states with these unconstitutional laws have the power to change things.

 

[Red Wind]

That says it all,Schwing. You are on the money.

 

[jrmiddleton425]

This wasn't really unexpected. In upholding the NY SAFE Act, the 2nd Circuit ruled that for Heller to apply, the law would have to ban ALL semi-automatic weapons and give no options for compliance.

Edit: upon further thought, I guess that's completely consistent with Heller.

Heller is clear that weapons "in common use" cannot be banned. It would seem to me that if the plaintiff concedes that assault weapons are "in common use" (and most do), it contradicts Heller to put restrictions on them. Unfortunately that decision isn't up to me.

On the other side of the coin, I feel that the day is coming when some jurisdiction will define an "assault weapon" as a semi-automatic weapon with a detachable magazine, and then the court will have to decide what the limit is on restricting features; in other words, at what point limiting "military features" constitutes a "ban."

 

[Bobson]

We'd better hope that the next president doesn't add an anti-gun judge to SCOTUS otherwise we are in big trouble.

Count your lucky stars RBG doesn't want to step down yet. Best thing she could do for her like-minded Americans would be step down now and let Obama put a younger, healthier liberal in her seat. She's taking a gamble otherwise. If her health fails and she doesn't make it another 8 years, during which time we're more likely to have a conservative President (IMO), a conservative will likely take her place. Of course, if Clinton is elected, we're all but screwed. Then again, if she's in the oval office, another liberal judge will probably be the least of our worries.

 

[gbw]

On the other side of the coin, I feel that the day is coming when some jurisdiction will define an "assault weapon" as a semi-automatic weapon with a detachable magazine, and then the court will have to decide what the limit is on restricting features; in other words, at what point limiting "military features" constitutes a "ban."

That's almost exactly what Highland Park has done, and the Supreme Court has now in effect agreed it's fine.

For those not concerned because this is a local/state issue, is there any reason to assume a different outcome from the Supreme Court should Congress ever pass a similar law? I don't see why, and sooner or later the political makeup of the congress can change against us. Federal Law trumps State law.

BTW, if the wrong side wins the Presidency I think you can effectively kiss Heller/McDonald and the individual 2A right goodbye. Recall it was upheld by ONE vote.

 

[barnbwt]

For those happy that this wasn't an explicit win for the anti's, this is what the anti's victory looks like. So long as the court does not rule one way or the other, the laws they desire to pass will remain, both at the local and potentially federal levels. They lose nothing by not getting an opinion in their favor, but do avoid the fallout of a poorly written statist cop-out justifying them. Fallout that, given the character of the US map these days and the near future, may well include a constitutional amendment forbidding assault weapon bans at the federal (or even also state) level. You need 2/3rds in both houses and 3/4ths of the state legislatures. The former may be possible in the next cycle or so (especially if rural folks in a couple 'blue' states make enough of a fuss to matter instead of stockpiling over the next twelve months) and the latter is already in place.

But since this isn't a 'precedent,' the pressure and desperation is nowhere to be found. We'll just wait for the next one to be heard. Then the next one. Then the next one, and the next, and the next, and so on, until there's 'fifty years of history of these bans being in place' and the precedent becomes final (basically what happened with machine guns via Miller and the registry closure)

TCB

 

[SuperNaut]

BTW, if the wrong side wins the Presidency I think you can effectively kiss Heller/McDonald and the individual 2A right goodbye. Recall it was upheld by ONE vote.

That's not how it works. There aren't many do-overs in Constitutional Law, IIRC there would need to be another case(s) that works its way up to SCOTUS that would invalidate all or parts of DC v. Heller. There have been books written on how to overturn DC v. Heller, and from what I've read it would be quite an undertaking.

I think it might be easier to convene a Constitutional Convention and nullify the Second Amendment.

 

[natman]

While it would have been good if they'd taken it up, the Supreme Court only accepts 1 out of every hundred cases. They've taken up two major cases in the past 7 years, Heller and McDonald, which relatively speaking is a 2nd Amendment frenzy.

 

[481]

That's not how it works. There aren't many do-overs in Constitutional Law, IIRC there would need to be another case(s) that works its way up to SCOTUS that would invalidate all or parts of DC v. Heller. There have been books written on how to overturn DC v. Heller, and from what I've read it would be quite an undertaking.

I think it might be easier to convene a Constitutional Convention and nullify the Second Amendment.

I would also think that stare decis might play a part in this, too.

 

[gbw]

That's not how it works. There aren't many do-overs in Constitutional Law, IIRC there would need to be another case(s) that works its way up to SCOTUS that would invalidate all or parts of DC v. Heller. There have been books written on how to overturn DC v. Heller, and from what I've read it would be quite an undertaking.

I think it might be easier to convene a Constitutional Convention and nullify the Second Amendment.

It works however they want it to. They get to make their own rules.

This is such a decisive issue that I think the niceties of judicial process, including stare decisis, will be short cut if the court shifts far enough left. That's very possible over the next eight years if wrong candidate wins. Admittedly the worst case but still plausible, it gives little need to repeal 2A which is unlikely.

Also worth recalling that Colorado for example was, not long ago, rabidly pro gun.

 

[CoalTrain49]

2A is silent in many areas only saying the right may not be infringed. The feds have already passed legislation declaring some arms to be illegal which have more or less set a precedent. If 2A meant that all firearms should be legal to own NFA would have been struck down many years ago, along with the 1994 AWB, but they weren't. Granted, the SC has different justices on it now, but come on, does anyone actually think the present SC is going to support the public's right to own a firearm that for all intents and purposes is a battle rifle clone. I know, it isn't the same thing, but it sure looks like it and most people wouldn't know the difference if you explained it to them.

We're lucky they don't ban 5.56 and 7.62 cartridges. They don't have anything to do with the type of rifle that can use them but they were designed to be used in military rifles.

The SC, if they decide to decide on what's appropriate for the civilian population to own could easily ban all semi-auto rifles and pistols that use a magazine. Can't happen you say? Well I would have bet that same sex marriage wouldn't have become legal in all 50 states either, but it happened.

 

[yokel]

2A is silent in many areas only saying the right may not be infringed.

You evidently need to go back and read the Second Amendment again:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

All those who like to argue that the authors of the Second Amendment did not intend to protect the right of ordinary American citizens to own military weapons and equipment must contend with the fact that the same Congress which passed the Second Amendment also passed the Militia Act of 1792. This law required every free male between the ages of 18 and 44 to own the same type of rifle that was used by soldiers in the Revolutionary War and to own ammunition as well.

We can reasonably conclude that the Founders expected citizens to be able to have guns as good as, or better than, the standard military weapons of the time in order to wield an effective and credible conventional warfighting capability.