http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/0...doesnt-violate-2nd-amendment-judge-rules.html States have the right to ban these guns, court says. Good for the judge, we must let states have some authority to regulate guns. Otherwise we have Mad Max. This does not violate the 2nd Amendment.
I am not pretending anything. This decision will go to appeal ( it needs to) and we will see SCOTUS does, to more clearly define those terms using this as an opportunity. Legislatures and appellate courts need more parameters than those vague or ambiguous terms regardless. Might as well find out sooner than later.
as always, SCOTUS will refuse to hear the case. why? they believe that the States have some authority to regulate firearms.
not to ban ones in common use that are not unusually dangerous. common sense dictates that any firearm civilian police use, are in common use and not unusually dangerous
Heller complicates things, Ronstar. For blue state legislatures and cities, the difference between regulation and effectively banning, is pretty nifty happy hunting grounds, just as it is post Roe, in Red states. We need clarification. Too many people buy into the NRA propaganda and think Heller justifies not trying to do anything at all
SCOTUS would hear the case if ALL semi-automatic weapons were banned. but no state or city has done that. only some semi-autos are banned, while many more are not. and that is legal.
If they decline to hear it, that means the ruling stands, and we have some clarity at least for awhile on the constitutionality of similar laws. I am on your side here but we need to know what SCOTUS will tolerate.
the SCOTUS has so far refused to hear at least 3 assault-weapons ban laws. all of them mimicking the Federal ban of 1993. only takes 4 Justices to vote to hear a case. there are 6 Conservatives on the court.
No, they don't mimic the 1994 AWB. These state bans actually ban firearms in common use for lawful purposes or having a reasonable relationship to the efficiency and preservation of a militia.
The 1994 AWB didn't actually ban ownership. Everything was grandfathered. The Connecticut, Maryland and Massachusetts bans don't grandfather much at all.
In what way? How can these bans be legal when they ban guns "in common use for lawful purposes" or "having a reasonable relationship to the efficiency and preservation of a militia"? One of the Circuit Courts actually stated that these weapons fit that description.
Let's run it through the liberal law interpreter: Do I like this law? 1. Yes - Make it mandatory 2. No - Ignore it and do what I want
if these laws were sooooo illegal, SCOTUS wouldn't keep refusing to hear appeals. only takes four justices to take a case.
Oh this is simple. If SCOTUS decided not to entertain further review, that means the those circuit court decisions stand on their own merits. Your description of what they do and your interpretation is not relevant. SCOTUS was not disturbed sufficiently by what they held, to want to even hear your objections. When they are worried about the constitutionality of circuit court opinions , or see them as inconsistent with one they made, they will let the world know.
its idiotic because it claims the blanket prohibition on government action wanes if there are other guns available you clearly don't understand what a negative restriction is but that is ok because lots of statist judges don't either
Can you defend the decisions of the 2nd, 4th, 7th and 9th Circuit Courts using the Constitution and SCOTUS decisions?
Not my responsibility. I am not a constitutional law specialist. That is what the NRA and its friends pay some of the best legal talent money can buy for. Thus far they have not been super successful in their appellate briefs. That was my point. SCOTUS is not overly concerned that these decisions sufficiently undermine Heller or other SCOTUS decisions to accept any of these cases, and this is a predominantly conservative court theoretically sympathetic with the general direction of that majority opinion. My guess is that they do not see same breadth and scope to the second amendment rights to bear arms, that you and your allies may have hoped and they are more than willing to see circuit courts trim those sails here and there.
I find it very telling that the VERY Supreme Court that gave us Heller and McDonald, also rejected an appeal of an assault weapons ban in 2015. what does that tell us? it tells us that the same Justices who supported the right to keep handguns in the home for lawful purposes ALSO believed that the States had some discretion and authority to regulate what types of firearms The People may possess. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
"The effect of denial of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court is often debated. The decision of the Court of Appeals is unaffected. However, the decision does not necessarily reflect agreement with the decision of the lower court." Let's presume you're right. What can any state restrict or ban? Is there any limit?
when the Supreme Court votes 7 to 2, four times in a row to reject the appeal of a certain type of law, its fair to believe that those 7 Justices believe the law is Constitutional.
