Posted on 11/28/2017 12:39:04 AM PST by Oshkalaboomboom
Well, for pro-Second Amendment supporters and gun owners the Supreme Court has once again fallen short. The gun rights movement has scored a slew of landmark rulings on Second Amendment rights, but alas—you can’t win them all. The Court refused to hear arguments on Maryland’s assault weapons ban—and the media was, well, in usual form reporting on it. The Supreme Court has refused to hear any further legal challenges on overtly stringent and possibly unconstitutional gun control laws from predominantly blue states since 2010 (via Reuters) [emphasis mine]:
The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a setback on Monday to gun rights proponents including the National Rifle Association, refusing to hear a challenge to Maryland’s 2013 state ban on assault weapons enacted after a Connecticut school massacre. […] The justices, who have avoided major gun cases for seven years, sidestepped the roiling national debate over the availability of military-style guns to the public. The case focused on weapons that have become a recurring feature in U.S. mass shootings including the Nov. 5 attack at a Texas church that killed 26 people, the Oct. 1 attack at a Las Vegas concert that killed 58 people, and the 2012 massacre of 20 schoolchildren and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, which prompted Maryland’s law.
Assault weapons are popular among gun enthusiasts.
[…] Maryland’s ban outlaws “assault long guns,” mostly semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15 and AK-47, as well as large-capacity magazines, which prevent the need for frequent reloading. […] “The sands are always shifting with the Supreme Court,” Democratic Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh said. “I hope that this means they have reached a conclusion that they are not going to fiddle with assault weapons bans across the country.” First, there is no such thing as an assault weapon. What we have here is a bunch of liberals who think a certain rifle looks scary, so they banned it. Period. Shotguns and rifles are rarely used in gun crimes, despite all the noise the Left makes about mass shootings, which are also rare. The 1994 ban also did next to nothing to reduce gun violence.
Second, I’m not one to dabble in the SCOTUS prediction game because more times than not these prognostications are wrong, but Justice Kennedy sided with the conservative wing in Heller v. D.C., which stated the right to gun ownership was an individual right unconnected to service in militia in 2008. This only applied to federal enclaves. It was expanded to the states in 2010 in McDonald v. Chicago, in which Kennedy again sided with the Alito-Scalia wing. I think it’s safe to say that the 5-4 split would maintain. Yet, if I had to pick a fight to roll back assault weapons bans or push to expand concealed carry rights, I'd choose the latter. It would be a more expansive win as well.
Some states (usually red) have laws where if you file the proper paperwork, take the required classes, and pass a background check, by law—the state must issue a CCW permit. Other states (blue) have a justifiable need provision (i.e. documented death threats) in order to obtain a concealed carry permit. The process for denying an American’s right to self-protection is arbitrary. Fox Business’s John Stossel documented his tortuous journey to obtain a gun permit in deep-blue New York. Ideally, I wish every state were constitutional carry, in which you don’t need a permit to carry a firearm; 13 states have such laws, Vermont being one of them.
The right to carry a concealed firearm is now recognized in all 50 states, including Washington D.C. Yet, some states don’t share reciprocity with others. SCOTUS has also exhibited the same hesitation to hear arguments about these provisions as well. Still, I’d rather win a broad legal victory striking down absurd obstacles within some states’ concealed carry codes and leave smashing assault weapons bans for the second bout.
I guarantee there is no legal definition of “assault weapon”.
As such, the SCOTUS cannot even answer 1+1 on this subject.
Additionally, any reading of the 2A, and a cursory look at its purpose, would have no choice but to conclude “assault weapon” was precisely what it was to guarantee.
This will be revisited by the SCOTUS for sure, as what they just did was essentially telegraph to the states they can “define” and ban any gun, which is a clear violation of our Constitutional “right to bear arms... shall not be infringed”.
Especially, as any gun type can be used to “assault”, and therefore can be used as an “assault weapon”.
SCOTUS just insured their own day of reckoning on this subject!
States cannot deny the “right to bear arms...”, which is exactly what the libtard airheads will try to do.
I don’t think SCOTUS should have the option of not hearing a case once it has gone through all the steps to get to them. If they need help understanding the Constitution; I’m sure we can find someone to explain it to them in terms they can understand.
I agree! And, it shouldn’t take them forever to rule.
Denying a writ of certiorari for a case doesn’t set a precedent one way or the other. I see the breathless fake news reporting on the case, but I haven’t actually read the 4th Circuit’s decision nor any of the arguments that led to that decision.
It would be better for them to deny cert on a case than it would be for them to render a decision that made the 4th Circuit’s decision applicable nationwide. I would rather wait a couple of years until POTUS has had a chance to replace Ginsburg (84 y/o) and Breyer (79 y/o) before trying to set a nationwide precedent.
“Assault Weapons” ban coming nationwide - bump for later...
Definitely. 4 (four) Associate Justices are Democrat appointees and are votes against us. And Kennedy is by no means in our corner.
The conservatives on the court would be the ones who don't want to hear this yet. They can count to 5.
Much better if Ginsburg, Breyer, Kennedy -- and possibly even Sotomayor (63 with Type 1 diabetes) are replaced first.
Good point. “Assault weapon” is not consistently defined. There’s nothing for SCOTUS to legalize without legalizing ALL guns, ending all categorical bans.
A better case would be taking a federally-registered NFA “assault weapon” to a prohibiting state, having federally recognized “right to keep” violated.
There’s too many cases for SCOTUS to handle.
Trick to compelling is getting conflicting rulings in lower jurisdictions.
Hey now!
I’m a Type 1 and not much younger that Sotomayor!
We can live a long life with good insulin and blood sugar control; usually better than a Type 2.
Exactly. The Supreme Court was pretty clear about that in 1938.
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. US v. Miller
The court was lied to during arguments because only the government side presented oral argument. They were not informed of the extensive use of sawed off shotguns in trench fighting during WWI.
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.