Supreme Court Declines To Hear Challenge [CONNECTICUT’S BAN ON POPULAR SEMI-AUTOMATIC FIREARMS]

DailySignal ^ | June 20, 2016 | Connecticut Citizens Defense League, Inc. Blog

[Daffynition]

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA – The United States Supreme Court declined on Monday to review a lower court’s ruling refusing to strike down on Second Amendment grounds Connecticut’s ban on certain semi-automatic firearms including the most popular rifles in the Nation. The Connecticut Citizens’ Defense League (CCDL) and other plaintiffs challenged Connecticut’s ban in 2013, arguing that the ban openly flouts the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which held that law-abiding citizens have an individual right to keep commonly owned firearms in their homes for self-defense.

[itsahoot]

Look for Americans to not give their guns up.

I used to believe that but our country has gone from a time when a kid was able to take a 22 to school so they can hunt a rabbit after class, to being expelled for biting a corner off a pop tart.

[ctdonath2]

He dropped dead while briefly alone in his bedroom on a hunting trip.
No autopsy.
Not kidding.

(And yes it’s ok to NOT be completely up on all events.)

[Edward.Fish]

New York has a similar ban. Possibly other states. Could it be the Supreme Court is waiting for the case against the state law they can uphold.

No, they decline to hear it because to hear it would be to have to judg on the matter... and the real truth is that the court is horribly political and doesn't really care about the law/jurisprudence. A perfect example is the Proposition 8 case, where the CA state court certified that the people of the state were indeed harmed by the state's non-action on the matter, and which the USSC refused to hear saying that the people of the State had no standing.

Likewise, they will not rule on gun-bans because (a) to do so would alter the political landscape, one way or another; (b) because letting things stand as-is means that they can use Congress's hand-wringing trick about executive-branch overreach; and, (c) because they do not honor the Constitution.

[Bubba_Leroy]

The Constitution now says whatever the hell 5 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices want it to say. If Scalia's seat is filled by anyone other than a strict constructionist then you can kiss Heller and the 2nd Amendment goodbye.

In 1986, the Supreme Court recognized that nowhere in the Constitution can you find "a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy.” In 2003, the Supreme Court discovered a previously unknown fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy hidden in the emanations from penumbra of the Constitution (the same place that you can find the Constitutional right to abortion, just below the Freedom From Religion clause).

The Heller decision is unlikely to last that long.

[ptsal]

Make the SCOTUS crew ride the Green line morning, noon, and night until they get the message.

[Kickass Conservative]

Oh come on. You’re screwing with us, right?

It isn’t even April 1st. LOL

[raisetheroof]

To get a decent USSC Justice we need to elect Donald Trump and not “stand on principle” and allow Hillary to become President

And elect a filibuster proof Senate as well. All the nominations from President Trump will come to naught, if the Senate Dems block them.

[WENDLE]

Dats wha I’m talk’in bout.

[MeganC]

Just change the filibuster rules. Harry Reid won’t mind since that was his idea when he did it.

[Chode]

where you been???

[gunsequalfreedom]

Just playing the straight man in this comedy of a presidency. Keep in mind that Mark Dice interviews people like that every day.

[gunsequalfreedom]

I realize junior high school is out for the summer; your attempt to highjack the thread w/ stupid, is not appreciated, especially when there are serious events taking place now.

Yea I agree. There are much more serious issues...than a supreme court justice dead without an autopsy. Glad you get it.

[sport]

He is not.

[gunsequalfreedom]

How exactly do you think it came to be that the Supreme Court did not decide this case?

[tbw2]

With this court, I don’t believe so.

[Fitzy_888]

My concern was they would cherry pick the case to open the door to restrictions on “weapon characteristics” or magazine capacity.

I live in New York...I’m not registering any long arm...nor am I getting rid of (quote) “high capacity” magazines.

12 years to retire to Florida...can’t wait!

[BuckeyeTexan]

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

[Cheerio]

1. court not doing its job, needs to be replaced ASAP
2. by not doing its job, court is ‘denying’ American citizens their constitutionally-recognized liberties...and enabling the growing (Islamo-)fascist dictatorship in USA...

prepare to defend your friends, family, and self street to street
house to house
its coming.... Obama’s brought in another million +/- Islamonazi terrrorists ....many of whom appear to be spending their days-on-welfare at the rifle range....... and these states are trying to disarm you....

Stock up your armory!!! This is NOT going to end well - take that to the bank.

[houeto]

We don’t need for anybody to ‘play’ the part of dumbass. There’s plenty of that as is. Your little game stunk!

[gunsequalfreedom]

Oh, Okay. In the future I will put the sarc tags...for the totally obvious.. I realize now it is not pleasant when some people have to come to grips with their inherently reduced mental capabilities.

Mark Dice! We have an interviewee for you.