SCOTUS says FU gun nuts

evince said:
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear a Second Amendment challenge to an Illinois ordinance that banned semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. As is their custom, the justices gave no reason for turning down the appeal in the case, Friedman v. City of Highland Park, No. 15-133, which comes at a time when the national debate on gun control has been reignited by terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, Calif.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissented, saying that lower courts have been ignoring Supreme Court precedents on Second Amendment rights.

The ordinance, enacted in 2013, banned some weapons by name, including AR-15s and AK-47s. More generally, it prohibited possession of what it called assault weapons, defining them as semiautomatic guns that can accept large-capacity magazines and have features like a grip for the nontrigger hand. Large-capacity magazines, the ordinance said, are those that can accept more than 10 rounds.


Continue reading the main story

Related Coverage



Adam J. Allan, right, the former owner of Badger Guns in West Milwaukee, and Milton Beatovic, who co-owned a previous gun shop at the same location.

Trial in Wisconsin Tests Gun Store’s Judgment on Illegal SalesOCT. 12, 2015




The Roseburg Gun Shop in Roseburg, Ore., the town where a gunman killed nine people and wounded nine others at a community college last week.

Gun Safety Group Sees Room to Reinforce Existing LawsOCT. 4, 2015




A customer at KC’s Exchange, a gun store in Roseburg, Ore., in May, the month that Gov. Kate Brown signed a new background check law.

Prospects for Change: Oregon’s Gun Debate Goes Beyond Liberals vs. ConservativesOCT. 2, 2015


In 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court struck down a federal law that banned keeping handguns at home for self-defense, finding for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to bear arms. In 2010, the court extended the principle to state and local governments.

Continue reading the main story





Gun Control Explained

Since then, the court has turned away appeals in any number of Second Amendment challenges to gun control laws.

The ordinance, from Highland Park, Ill., in the Chicago suburbs, was challenged by the Illinois State Rifle Association and Dr. Arie S. Friedman, who at his home had kept guns and magazines for self-defense that were banned by the ordinance. The term “assault weapons,” they told the justices, “is an imaginary and pejorative category.”

The Illinois rifle group and Dr. Friedman urged the Supreme Court to address what they called “the lower courts’ massive resistance to Heller and their refusal to treat Second Amendment rights as deserving respect equal to other constitutional rights.”

A supporting brief filed by 24 states said the ordinance “bans many commonly used firearms and the standard capacity magazines for many popular firearms.”

In April, a divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago, upheld the Highland Park ordinance.
Click to expand...

read your own article retard.
 
Superfreak said:
In 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court struck down a federal law that banned keeping handguns at home for self-defense, finding for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to bear arms. In 2010, the court extended the principle to state and local governments.
Click to expand...

Pseudo-constitutionalists invented the individual right to bear arms in 2008, after 200 years of the concept not existing in American constitutional law.
 
evince said:
super your fucking stupid lies fool no one


they just out your evil fucking ass for being a lying shit nosed weasel with no real human emotions in you.

your a fucking sociopathic evil fuck
Click to expand...

there are trigger words and many micro aggressions in this post. Can it be removed please? I don't feel safe on the board
 
evince said:
if this country decides you cant have them then you cant have them asshole
Click to expand...

It hasn't... and it won't.

And that has absolutely nothing to do with my comment, or the topic.

You want people to lose their guns so they all get killed by the bad guys.
Majority of those victims will be blacks.
Why do you hate blacks?
Why are you so racist?
You want all blacks to be killed.
Etc.
 
Superfreak said:
So you think that because they didn't hear a case that means they agree with the lower court? LMAO.
Click to expand...

No, it means that the assault rifle ban in Illinois still stands. There's some interesting info in this article which I'm sure you cons will disagree with.

"Arie Friedman challenged Highland Park’s assault-weapons ban, which prohibits residents from buying, selling, or owning some types of semiautomatic firearms. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Chicago surburb’s ban by narrowly interpreting the Court’s recent Second Amendment rulings, which focused on handguns...

As Michael Waldman noted in his recent history of the Second Amendment, virtually all judges and constitutional scholars believed until recently that there was no constitutional right to individual gun ownership. Chief Justice Warren Burger, a staunchly conservative Nixon appointee, called the idea “a fraud on the American public” in a 1980 interview. The most notable gun-related case of the Rehnquist Court, U.S. v. Lopez, struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 for exceeding Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce, not for violating the Second Amendment..."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/supreme-court-gun-rights/419160/
 
The denying of certiorari wasn't surprising; there isn't any conflict in the lower courts to resolve and really, the issue isn't ripe yet.

Drawing a conclusion from this, like the OP has, saying that the Court agrees / endorses / has "upheld" the ban, is wishful thinking and demonstrative only of ignorance of the Supreme Court's operation. The Court denied cert many times on 2nd Amendment cases over the 69 years since Miller, hearing only Lewis in 1980, which had to do with felon dispossession. It wasn't until there was conflict in the circuits that Heller was heard.

Remember also, in Heller the Court recognized its guidance was thin and that it has yet to undertake an exhaustive analysis of the full scope of the Second Amendment.

Anti's shouldn't get too happy; a world of hurt is yet to be visited upon you.

Remember, Miller's protection criteria says that to be protected by the 2nd Amendment, a gun be of a type that is "any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense" and/or, "of the kind in common use at the time" by regular citizens.

In Heller the Court only needed the "in common use" prong to invalidate the DC statutes; don't fret, the other legs of the criteria await being applied to an assault weapons ban.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top