Posted on 12/08/2015 9:40:56 AM PST by Enlightened1
In a 7-2 vote, the high court's justices refused to take up a challenge to a Chicago suburb's ban on the sale or possession of semi-automatic weapons or high-capacity magazines with more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
The court's move is a small victory for activists against the spread of such guns, which can potentially kill many people in a short period of time.
"By rejecting this case, today the Supreme Court sided with a community that has taken action to protect itself from the type of violence we've seen in San Bernardino, on college campuses and in movie theaters," said Dan Gross, president of the Brady Center and Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
We don’t know that it was a 7-2 vote. All we know is that there weren’t four votes for granting cert, and two signed on to the dissent.
Our rights are hanging by a thread.
Well it looks like the Supreme Court has ruled, by not taking the case, that locals can take your guns.
I lived the aftermath of the 1994 AWB under Clinton and the pussy Republican RINOs. I also lived the expiration of the ban 10 years later. I will say this. I was NOT idle during the time between 2004 and then. They can do what they want. It won’t affect me one frigging bit.
My understanding is the Supreme Court actually did not take a stand on this issue.
They did not give a nod either way.
All cosmetic - same weapon can be made with out all the black dodads.
They are defaulting to the lower court ruling that it was okay for locals to take your guns.
That’s my understanding also.
If only 2 signed on the dissent when they needed 5, then it’s fair to conclude they were willing to go along with the ban.
I’m disappointed in who I believe who are the absentees: Alito and Roberts. Kennedy, a supposed libertarian, appears to be MIA from the libertarian cause.
An assault rifle must have machine gun capability to be an assault rifle.
What Scotus has agreed to allow bans on is regular old rifles that go bang, bang, bang.
They are idiots.
It's nothing of the sort. It's no change at all. The rules that were challenged are already the law in many places. And not hearing a case is not the same thing as making a positive ruling.
No, no theyre not. RIghts cant be suspended - they arent privileges, laws, regulations or rules. They aren’t given by men nor can men revoke them. Now we might have to fight for them but theyre ours to exercise as long as we will.
....and all the criminals, terrorists and would-be terrorists are laughing their asses off right this minute..................
No, a justice can vote to hear the case without signing a written dissent.
They permitted guns bans to continue by their inaction. That was not accidental.
Chicago is now safe from "gun violence"!
“...Our rights are hanging by a thread...”
No, they’re not.
They can only take away what you are willing to give up.
That’s what the Second Amendment is FOR in the first place.
Why not? The blew it in Miller, too. They said that short barreled shotguns were not useful as weapons of war.
If liberal cities all over the country start banning “assault” weapons, it will be those cities that will be attacked. The rest of us can stand guard at our locations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.