Supreme Court won’t rule on gun bans
AFP reports that the Supreme Court declined to listen to challenges to Connecticut and New York laws that specifically ban scary black guns in those states.
The US Supreme Court on Monday effectively upheld state bans on military-style assault weapons, declining to hear a challenge to bans on guns like the one used to kill 49 people in Orlando earlier this month.
The challenge was brought by gun rights advocates seeking to overturn bans on assault weapons passed by Connecticut and New York after the 2012 killing of 26 people at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut.
Good. The 10th Amendment lives. If the people who live in those concentration camps want to change the laws, let them do it through their legislatures. If they don’t like how their elected representatives voted to take their rights away from them, let them toss the bums out on the street.
If they are unable to toss their delegates out, they can always move to Vermont or another state that doesn’t sneak up on them in the middle of the night to steal their guns from them. We still have the freedom to do that (for now).
I don’t like judges who legislate from the bench, and given the current and the future make up of the Supreme Court, I don’t trust those who are left to vote my way. – and probably won’t be good for any of us for this clown car ride to hand down dictates from the bench.
Category: Legal
I would think that at this point they denied seeing it because the time would be wasted. It would become a 4-4 result, like any of the bigger political issues.
The sad thing is how many decisions are 5-4. That doesn’t tell me anything but they are voting based on their “party” affiliation on an issue. If they are there to interpret laws based on Constitutionality, it shouldn’t so often be a 5-4 or 4-5 decision. That’s just 4/5 conservatives decided based on how THEY feel versus 4/5 liberals deciding based on how THEY feel.
This was a conflict between the 10th and 2nd amendments.
10th Amendment prevailed but that does not necessarily count as a win.
It depends on which amendment you care about most.
In fact, I would argue this is not a win for the 10th amendment since it does not establish a new president.
What it does do is leave the lower court ruling intact meaning that similar gun bans are presumed constitutional in other jurisdictions.
Conceivably even a federal ban.
I’m sure you meant “establish a new precedent,” Lars.
We can only WISH someone would establish a new president.
Yeah, I have an increasing problem with malapropisms. It is being investigated by the VA.
Watch it if they want to examine your crotch. You may come back… shall we say… “changed.”
Would that sort of change be considers a “mal-a-prod-pism”?
Where did you get the 10th Amendment doesn’t set a new precedent in the article? (Or did you just not read the article, as usual?)
What other lower court ruling are you talking about? No other court has ruled that similar gun bans would be presumed constitutional in other jurisdictions.
I think the take-away is that SCOTUS recognizes a state’s authority to pass its own legislation (right or wrong) regarding the 2d Amendment. Unless you’ve been asleep over the last few years, you’d know some states have passed restrictive gun laws (i.e. New York and Connecticut), but by doing so those same laws undermine the rights of law abiding citizens.
Even though gun-rights advocates appealed to the court to overturn state laws that are prohibitive, SCOTUS recognized that states have the right to pass such laws. Jonn’s point is if folks don’t like it, they need to vote in order to get new people in office to pass legislation that makes sense (the kind that doesn’t encroach on their rights). If that doesn’t work, they can move to a state that doesn’t infringe on their rights.
You also wrote, “Conceivably even a federal ban.” (Are you suggesting that because of SCOTUS’ silence on the matter that a federal ban is on the horizon?) Yeah… okay.
Many states have taken an opposite approach by opting to not only ban enforcement on future gun acts that encroach on the 2d Amendment, but they also don’t have to enforce or assist in the enforcement of them. Many states already have already passed or proposed similar measures and a lot of sheriffs have said they won’t enforce new (or future) federal gun control measures.
There was no ruling so no precedent. So the 10th Amendment prevailed was not made stronger.
While the second was made weaker.
I did not say this could lead to a federal ban.
But SCoTUS being silent on the matter does signal that a federal ban that is similar to the ban they refused to hear the appeal on would be constitutional.
It has already signaled that a similar ban would be constitutional of other states implemented it.
That is literally what leaving the lower court ruling means.
yeah…can’t say I’m a fan of states trumping weapons of common use not banned by federal law either, though the idea of libtards living in their own filth in itself has appeal.
States rights should always trump federal rights. No matter what rights those states deem important. If not, our democratic republic fails. Necessarily, if you don’t like the rights your states deem important, the freedom to move to another state that closer fits your values is always there.
Not picking at you buddy, but once we make comments like that, ideas of federal overarching power(over states rights specifically)start to creep into the minds of those whom are in power.
And under the guise of security freedoms will be lost.
Cheers,
MrFace
I see your point , but in this case you are seeing the exact opposite of what you seem to desire. I guess perhaps I should clarify, rather than federal law per se, I’m saying that that states shouldn’t be able to interfere with your constitutional rights.
John we don’t want any more flatlanders in Vermont. You saw personally what they did to Burlington Area.
But I thought that everyone there was so friendly, even if they moved there they turned into a friendly Vermontese?
Bernie’s a Senator there and he was born in NY, he seems like a nice guy….
One popular bumpersticker I saw there was “Welcome to Vermont. Now go home.”
Hawaii had the same one when I was there.
Haha. I was with the Green Mountain Boys for 15 years and it wasn’t until I was transferring to a new unit in NC that they finally told me I was an “honorary Vermonter” and no long considered a “flatlander”.
SCOTUS is going to have to grasp the nettle sooner or later.
Scalia wrote in Heller that assault weapons bans were probably Constitutionally acceptable, but this was in dicta (legal-ese meaning it didn’t address the issue that the Court had to decide) so it’s not part of the legal decision and has no value as precedent.
Nevertheless, we can expect that at some future point, this very question will be raised in another circuit and once there is a “circuit split”, SCOTUS will be more likely to take up the issue.
Just like with gay marriage, SCOTUS puts off rulings on these highly divisive cases until they absolutely cannot do so anymore.
Whoops, I posted too soon, and I’ll correct myself before someone else does.
I just re-skimmed Heller and “assault weapon” bans are not mentioned. What Scalia said in Heller was that the 2nd Amendment did not protect the right of the people to “keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
Scalia then went on to say that the 2nd amendment would not prohibit “longstanding prohibitions” on felons or the mentally ill being able to possess firearms. So I stand corrected on that.
On page 55, Scalia actually argues the opposite and is wondering if the law must permit the ownership of an M-16
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty.
Scalia actually relied heavily on the earlier Miller decision when discussing what would and wouldn’t be permitted. If it has a militia purpose (Scalia did a great job of writing on what the militia was in the decision).
Yeah, it’s interesting that for 60+ years, “Miller” was considered to be a pro-gun-control decision but in fact, the conclusion of Miller actually makes the argument that not only are “military type” weapons protected under the 2nd amendment, that they are the ONLY type of weapons that are so protected.
I would think that true for individual small arms. Under Miller and M16 would be permissible, but a Barrett .50 cal or M249 would not, as they are crew served weapons.
Its unfortunate that they folks who went to the Supreme Court to argue against the NFA and Congresses withholding of tax stamps did so on other grounds, and did not rely on Miller.
M2 is crew served, Barret is not.
Ref this and the next article on the Code Pinkies… they always say they are OK with hunting rifles but hate “assault weapons” – what about when you use an AR to hunt with? Does that make their little heads explode?
Doctrinally its a “sniper team” of two which would make it a crew, nor is it an arm that common individual soldiers would be expected to possess. That makes it a little more problematic if someone relies on the logic Scalia laid out.
The Code Pink et al, are after all weapons, they are just going after the scary black rifles because its the only area they are getting traction.
After black rifles, it will be auto loading pistols with more than 10 rounds.
What military weapon is -not- used, per doctrine, by a pair, team or larger group?
Note that -individuals- qualify on many “crew served” weapons.
I am surprised lawyers are not pushing for such an “anything military is OK” legal doctrine. The arguments would be endless.
I sure didn’t have any “crew” for my M240B on my gun truck in Iraq. I took care of it myself and made sure it shot, solo.
Would’ve been a little tough getting a second guy into the turret with me though. Then again, these days it would seem the army is perfectly fine with two men in a turret.
Or my Browning .22? Great.
“Scalia said in Heller was that the 2nd Amendment did not protect the right of the people to “keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.””
Scalia was incorrect on that.
My guess is that the Court declined to take up the case, as a 4-4 tie would have given stronger credence to the current lower court ruling.
From a legal standpoint I believe the result is exactly the same, i.e. the lower court ruling stands and the SCOTUS opinion has no precedential value.
So perhaps SCOTUS figured that if the result is a foregone conclusion, there’s no point in wasting their time and energy.
However, sooner or later some other circuit will also weigh in. Perhaps a more traditionally conservative circuit like the 5th. If they rule the opposite way, then there is a “circuit split” and it makes it more likely that SCOTUS will take up the case in order to resolve the split (this is how the gay marriage issue got in front of SCOTUS.)
How likely are the states in the 5th Circuit likely to pass a law restricting these rifles? Probably not much.
Doesn’t have to be a state, it could be a city or other municipality (Austin? Baton Rouge?) Also it doesn’t have to be the 5th circuit, I could see it happening in the 4th as well (VA/MD/DE.)
I’m not posting first ever again, people must skip over the first comment or something. 😛
Except that there is no valid reason for there to be a 4-4 split, or ANY split. It should be 8-0 for upholding freedom of individuals to chose their own weapons, of ANY type, as the Amendment clearly protects.
I can write about plumbing and, after a line or two, anyone with a modicum of knowledge about plumbing would recognize that I don’t know shit about plumbing. Similarly, when a certain someone writes about legal matters, it is plainly obvious he hasn’t a freaking clue. I’ll just let him enjoy his pretend session. Buzz. Buzz.
“Good. The 10th Amendment lives. If the people who live in those concentration camps want to change the laws, let them do it through their legislatures.”
The 10th is not a justification to allow violations of other Amendments.
SCOTUS all to frequently shows their cowardly roots and abandons the principles they are charged to protect.
I am still very concerned that the court will veer sharply to the Left after this upcoming election. You can count on numerous 2nd Amendment cases coming to the court. Our only hope for sanity is the Chief Justice may be able to fend some of the bullshit off. I still think the future make up of the court is the most important issue in this election. Sadly not enough people even consider the importance of a SCOTUS that adheres to the Constitution. Justice Scalia R.I.P.