[NeoCaveman]

The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to review a ruling that upheld California's ban on assault weapons and declared there was no constitutional right for individuals to own a gun.
Without comment, the justices let stand the ruling by a U.S. appeals court in San Francisco that the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to own or possess arms.

How did the Supreme Court declare anything when they declined without comment. The two statements are inherently contradictory. Nice of Rueters to try to spin it, though.

[Barnacle]

How did the Supreme Court declare anything when they declined without comment. The two statements are inherently contradictory. Nice of Rueters to try to spin it, though.

Well said. All the same, this event demonstrates the need to get a Supreme Court that will uphold the Constitution.

[Dan from Michigan]

I believe is SCOTUS doesn't hear it, than the 9th circuit ruling stands.

That said, this law is still illegal. If not by US law, then by my law.

[GeorgeWashington777]

I caught that to! And had to re-read! The Supreme Court said nothing! But they did let stand what the fricken appeals court had already ruled.

But at first reading they spin it to sound as if the Supreme Court rules or says the individule has no right.......