24 states urge Supreme Court to take up assault rifle ban case

[dennism]

Its now or never no? Better know than never if that is the case. Things only get worse when new judges are appointed.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Friedman v. Highland Park was NOT listed in today's orders. That probably means that there's at least one justice who wants to talk about it.

 

[Jsfitzgerald85]

if the court ruled that an AWB was unconstitutional, why wouldnt Mass have to end theirs?

 

[MachineHead]

if the court ruled that an AWB was unconstitutional, why wouldnt Mass have to end theirs?

Because it's not the same as marriage equality. Which, we all know, is clearly a violation of rights if denied. [sarcasm]

What's the significance of the case not being on the order?

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

if the court ruled that an AWB was unconstitutional, why wouldnt Mass have to end theirs?

IF SCOTUS did rule that the Highland Park ban was unconstitutional, it would probably apply to the Massachusetts ban as well. But, I don't expect that to happen without a lawsuit directly challenging our AWB. A lot can happen in the interim. Much would depend upon how the court actually worded their decision. I also would expect Massachusetts to be very creative in carving out legal theory as to why our AWB was different than the one challenged in Highland Park.

Let's put this in perceptive. Supreme Court rulings don't automatically force all relative laws to fall. Despite the speed with which marriage equality was recognized by the court, there are still some local jurisdiction that have put up residents. Brown v. Board of Education was decided in 1954. In 1957 Little Rock Central high School was still racially segregated and in 1963 Alabama Governor Wallace was fighting to keep his state's schools segregated. And school segregation continue into the 1980s. Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973 and more than 40 years later, we still have law makers trying to effectively ban what was at stake in that case.

This isn't a sprint, it's a marathon.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Relisted for the Oct 16th conference. I predict at least two more relists before it's denied.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

IF SCOTUS did rule that the Highland Park ban was unconstitutional, it would probably apply to the Massachusetts ban as well. But, I don't expect that to happen without a lawsuit directly challenging our AWB. A lot can happen in the interim. Much would depend upon how the court actually worded their decision. I also would expect Massachusetts to be very creative in carving out legal theory as to why our AWB was different than the one challenged in Highland Park.

Let's put this in perceptive. Supreme Court rulings don't automatically force all relative laws to fall. Despite the speed with which marriage equality was recognized by the court, there are still some local jurisdiction that have put up residents. Brown v. Board of Education was decided in 1954. In 1957 Little Rock Central high School was still racially segregated and in 1963 Alabama Governor Wallace was fighting to keep his state's schools segregated. And school segregation continue into the 1980s. Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973 and more than 40 years later, we still have law makers trying to effectively ban what was at stake in that case.

This isn't a sprint, it's a marathon.

Thanks for the info. Unless you deflate something it takes years.

 

[Squire]

IF SCOTUS did rule that the Highland Park ban was unconstitutional, it would probably apply to the Massachusetts ban as well. But, I don't expect that to happen without a lawsuit directly challenging our AWB. A lot can happen in the interim. Much would depend upon how the court actually worded their decision. I also would expect Massachusetts to be very creative in carving out legal theory as to why our AWB was different than the one challenged in Highland Park.

Let's put this in perceptive. Supreme Court rulings don't automatically force all relative laws to fall. Despite the speed with which marriage equality was recognized by the court, there are still some local jurisdiction that have put up residents. Brown v. Board of Education was decided in 1954. In 1957 Little Rock Central high School was still racially segregated and in 1963 Alabama Governor Wallace was fighting to keep his state's schools segregated. And school segregation continue into the 1980s. Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973 and more than 40 years later, we still have law makers trying to effectively ban what was at stake in that case.
This isn't a sprint, it's a marathon.

This is why the 4th branch of the Government is the People, Bearing Arms. If some Government policy/law/action/decision or lack thereof is egregiously Unconstitutional, the People reserve the Right to reform Government to fix it, through whatever means necessary.

 

[Bonesinium]

Here is the earlier thread on this topic. Some interesting direct analysis of the ruling.

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...ules-Assault-Weapons-Ban-OK-Based-on-Feelings

IF SCOTUS did rule that the Highland Park ban was unconstitutional, it would probably apply to the Massachusetts ban as well. But, I don't expect that to happen without a lawsuit directly challenging our AWB. A lot can happen in the interim. Much would depend upon how the court actually worded their decision. I also would expect Massachusetts to be very creative in carving out legal theory as to why our AWB was different than the one challenged in Highland Park.


Let's put this in perceptive. Supreme Court rulings don't automatically force all relative laws to fall. Despite the speed with which marriage equality was recognized by the court, there are still some local jurisdiction that have put up residents. Brown v. Board of Education was decided in 1954. In 1957 Little Rock Central high School was still racially segregated and in 1963 Alabama Governor Wallace was fighting to keep his state's schools segregated. And school segregation continue into the 1980s. Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973 and more than 40 years later, we still have law makers trying to effectively ban what was at stake in that case.

This isn't a sprint, it's a marathon.

Right you are. If it did, we wouldn't be having this discussion because SCOTUS already did rule on this. That was, as often happens, ignored by other courts. This court just happen to not only ignore it, lie about what SCOTUS said, and make the dumbest and obviously unfounded in law argument that feelings trump everything else.

 

[exo]

Here is the earlier thread on this topic. Some interesting direct analysis of the ruling.

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...ules-Assault-Weapons-Ban-OK-Based-on-Feelings



Right you are. If it did, we wouldn't be having this discussion because SCOTUS already did rule on this. That was, as often happens, ignored by other courts. This court just happen to not only ignore it, lie about what SCOTUS said, and make the dumbest and obviously unfounded in law argument that feelings trump everything else.

Tyranny of the feels. Ugh.

 

[DispositionMatrix]

Delayed.
http://patch.com/illinois/highlandpark/supreme-court-delays-decision-highland-park-weapons-ban-case

The United States Supreme Court will not decide until at least Monday whether or not to hear the case of Arie Friedman vs. the City of Highland Park, a challenge to the city’s ban on assault weapons, the Chicago Tribune reports.
Arie Friedman, a Lincolnshire pediatrician, sued the city after an ordinance passed banning semi-automatic “assault weapons” that carry more than 10 rounds. A federal appeals court upheld the city ordinance on a 2-1 vote.
“Assault weapons with large-capacity magazines can fire more shots, faster, and thus can be more dangerous in aggregate,” the appeals court’s majority opinion read. “Why else are they the weapons of choice in mass shootings?”

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Delayed.
http://patch.com/illinois/highlandpark/supreme-court-delays-decision-highland-park-weapons-ban-case

That was in post #72. If recent history is any indication, the case will likely be re-listed several times before they deny cert.

 

[drgrant]

That was in post #72. If recent history is any indication, the case will likely be re-listed several times before they deny cert.

This is their way of like dragging it out and then "dropping it when nobody is paying attention" type of deal? Like some plane will crash the same day and supremes will deny it cert 10 minutes later....

-Mike

 

[Serapis]

Interesting. Though i don't think a ruling against 2a would trigger a domino affect.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bonesinium]

This is their way of like dragging it out and then "dropping it when nobody is paying attention" type of deal? Like some plane will crash the same day and supremes will deny it cert 10 minutes later....

-Mike

No. SCOTUS has no reason for such things. Lifetime appointments who can pick or not pick whichever or whatever they want to hear. I doubt that has anything to do with it. Lots of other reasons, but not that.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

This is their way of like dragging it out and then "dropping it when nobody is paying attention" type of deal? Like some plane will crash the same day and supremes will deny it cert 10 minutes later....

-Mike

No, not at all. Relisting a case generally means that someone on the court is interested and wants to discuss it. At this point in the term they're getting rid of all the shit (~99%) that comes their way. If a justice has an interest in a case can they whole group doesn't get a chance to discuss it, the case get's punted to the next conference. As long as it's relisted, it's still in play.

 

[robjax]

Has this been posted?

http://news.yahoo.com/justices-mull...-assault-weapons-ban-124819706--politics.html

Great quote in here which sums up a great opposition to any type of federal, state or locally imposed ban....this is what the whole thing is about...I can't agree with this statement more...this states it perfectly.

"To limit self-defense to only those methods acceptable to the government" creates an "enormous transfer of authority from the citizens of this country to the government — a result directly contrary to our Constitution and to our political tradition," Manion wrote.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Not in today's orders. Relisted again. There's no conference this week, so we're looking at another two weeks before we might learn something.

 

[LittleCalm]

“Heller and McDonald set limits on the regulation of firearms; but within those limits, they leave matters open. The best way to evaluate the relation among assault weapons, crime, and self‐defense is through the political process and scholarly debate, not by parsing ambiguous passages in the Supreme Court’s opinions,” said Easterbrook in April 2015.

Judge Daniel Manion disagreed with Easterbrook in a strongly worded dissent. Limiting gun ownership restricts self-defense and represents an “enormous transfer of authority from the citizens of this country to the government – a result directly contrary to our Constitution and to our political tradition,” he wrote.

The ban “upholds an ordinance that violates the Second Amendment rights of its citizens to keep arms in their homes for the purpose of defending themselves, their families, and their property,” Manion concluded.

In their appeal to the Supreme Court, the attorneys for Friedman want the Court to spell out some more details on its Second Amendment jurisprudence.

“The Seventh Circuit upheld bans on commonly possessed firearms and magazines that clearly are unconstitutional under Heller, and it did so by applying a newly minted three-part test, all three parts of which stand in direct conflict with. Enough is enough,” their brief says.

http://news.yahoo.com/justices-mull...-assault-weapons-ban-124819706--politics.html

 

[DispositionMatrix]

If this is any indication, a SCOTUS ruling might not work out well for us. A read of the ruling by the 2nd Circuit reveals part of the problem is the judges had adopted not only the false assertions of gun restrictionists but the language that accompanies them. It is, at the least, a great illustration of the reasons why one should never adopt--and by extension participate in the normalization of--the language of disarmament enthusiasts.

So I can't help but wonder how much of the language and related flawed reasoning we could hear in a SCOTUS decision.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Not in today's orders. Relisted again. There's no conference this week, so we're looking at another two weeks before we might learn something.

Not in today's orders. It continues.... Either it's still in play or it's been denied and someone is writing another dissent of denial.

 

[hv55maxx]

Its only a matter of time before the unconstitutional regulation of 2A via Heller/etc comes back to bite everyone 10x as harder than any imagined good that could have possibly come out of a federal one size fits none solution.

Solution was and always has been at the state level

yea because our great blue state of MA likes your thought process. and they will continue to pork us with that thought process.

 

[ChevyGuy91]

yea because our great blue state of MA likes your thought process. and they will continue to pork us with that thought process.

The beauty of it being left to the states is if the issue means enough to you, you can move.

 

[hv55maxx]

The beauty of it being left to the states is if the issue means enough to you, you can move.

Tell my wife. Here because of family. Even though Vermont is 20 mins away grrrr


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Chevy 2 65]

The beauty of it being left to the states is if the issue means enough to you, you can move.

Moving is not an option for everyone. Its all BS to have to move, when its a ****ing right.

 

[ChevyGuy91]

Tell my wife. Here because of family. Even though Vermont is 20 mins away grrrr


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Moving is not an option for everyone. Its all BS to have to move, when its a ****ing right.

I am not here to tell any one to move, all I said was if the issue is important enough to you, you can move. Many people here have, myself included.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

This case, Friedman v. Highland Park, was relisted for Friday's conference. This was the 4th relist. My WAG is that it will be denied but that there will be another dissent similar to that in Jackson v. San Francisco. We should know on Monday at 9am if it was denied or if it's going to get another relist.

I think that Caetano has a much better chance of being granted cert. The court can address many of the same issues that are presented in Friedman, but can do so without jumping full-on into the whole assault weapons things. Caetano give the court the opportunity to a much more nuanced statement about the Second Amendment.

 

[ThePreBanMan]

The AR is the text book definition of "common use". It's the most popular model firearm in the country. If that doesn't define common - then everything could be banned.

 

[xtry51]

The AR is the text book definition of "common use". It's the most popular model firearm in the country. If that doesn't define common - then everything could be banned.

Never let facts get in the way of a great emotionally based argument by antis. SCOTUS just defended a cop pre-meditating shooting a perp from an overpass and claiming he was acting under distress while shooting to stop the car (6 shots fired, four hit suspect). Afterwards HE BRAGGED ABOUT IT.

It would not surprise me at all if SCOTUS said ARs could be banned. Hell, there's ZERO CHANCE IN HELL they'd ever rule 30rd mags were not ban-able despite being probably the most common mag in existence in the world ever between AKs and ARs.

SCOTUS does not give a shit about common use or your rights.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Friedman was not on today's orders list. That probably means it will be relisted or cert has been denied and one or more justices is working on a dissent.