U.S. Supreme Court Upholds City's Ban on Assault Weapons and High-Capacity Magazines

http://www.bradycampaign.org/press-...n-assault-weapons-and-high-capacity-magazines

This is a lie - not just a lie, but an outright, bald-faced lie - from the Brady campaign.
Cert denied is not a ruling on the merits of the case and therefore upholds nothing.

 

dishonesty and lies are the main stock in trade banoid groups have

 

But by not taking the case, aren't they de-facto allowing the ban to stand? Thus upholding it?

 

by not taking the case, at a vote of 7 to 2, they have in fact given a thumbs up to an AWB that is much stricter than the Federal one that expired in 2004.

the Federal one banned weapons with 2 features, the ones in Illinois, Connecticut, NY, Maryland, ban weapons with only 1 feature.

 

A case can only be "upheld" after the court hears it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certiorari

The Brady campaign lied.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes....

To someone, this somehow makes sense:



- - - Updated - - -

This is a statement of ignorance or dishonesty, as demonstrated above.

 

The law on the books stands, does it not?

 

See post #5.
The Brady statement is a lie.

 

The law on the books stands, does it not? Yes or no.

 

It does.
But it was not "upheld"
The Brady statement is a lie.

 

Ok, so what do you call it when they don't uphold it, but they don't also strike it down, and the law is still on the books?

- - - Updated - - -

Ah ok. So this is more of a semantic issue.

They didn't say 'YES', but they also didn't say 'NO'

 

The SCotUS allowed the previous decision to stand; neither it nor the law were "upheld".

It's not semantics -- "upheld" has a specific meaning.
The Brady campaign - which has its own legal department and knows this - deliberately used the wrong term.
They lied.

 

actually, the decided that the appeal was without merit and the Appeals Court decision should stand.

 

Your getting upset with hair splitting. Get over it and move on

 

SCOTUS has just ended the AWB ban debate

it is now legal.

 

<Rule 3>
They decided no such thing -- see post #5.

- - - Updated - - -

<Rule 3>

 

that post is incorrect.

SCOTUS has voted that the Appeals Court ruling stands.

the debate over AWB is over

 

Why do you refuse to agree that, as demonstrated, the Brady campaign lied?

- - - Updated - - -

<Rule 3>

 

Wouldn't not taking it be a defacto upholding? I mean, the law was passed, then appealed to the highest court, who chose to let the lower law stand without hearing it.

It seems like the way your viewing this is like holding your finger a quarter-inch from someones eye and saying 'i'm not touching you, i'm not touching you'.

 

No. I explained this in post #5.
Upholding a law and letting a prior decision stand are not the same thing.
Words mean things; when you deliberately use the wrong word to mislead the reader, you are lying.

- - - Updated - - -

<Rule 3>

 

SCOTUS agreed to allow the Appeals Court decision stand.

they felt no need to question their decision

 

yup, the court waits for a good case with clear issues...

 

Ahh ok. I understand what your saying now. Sorry about that. And yes, on that factor, I agree with your assertion that it wasn't Upheld. Basically if the case is resubmitted using a different and more compelling argument, they would then hear the case and decide to uphold or strike down.

 

Sometimes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certiorari

- - - Updated - - -

Quite possibly.

 

Can't bring yourself to answer the question, can you? You'd make a great politician...or WH press secretary.

 

I've answered all the questions here, at least those not posted by people I have on ignore.
If you disagree, please re-read the topic; if you find your question unanswered, please re-post said question