Assault Weapons Ban Before U.S. Supreme Court

[FJM25]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/assault-weapon-ban-u-s-supreme-court-n442056

Last paragraph:
A ruling striking down the city ordinance would undercut similar bans in California, Connecticut, Hawaii, New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey, and in Chicago and surrounding cities.

 

[wmass]

If only. I wont hold my breath tho.

 

[soloman02]

SCOTUS will only take the case if there is a circuit split. I am not sure that there is a circuit split.

 

[ScottS]

Be careful what you (we) wish for. Given the recent rulings (and refusals to accept), I'm not optimistic this will rule in our favor.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

It could go against us, I pray it does not but this makes me uncomfortable. I pray they uphold the 2A and understand the meaning of infringe.

Here is why:

Central to the dispute is the Supreme Court's 2008 ruling that, for the first time, said the Constitution's Second Amendment provides an individual right to own a handgun for self-defense.
While it was a watershed ruling for gun rights, it also said "dangerous and unusual weapons" can be restricted.

Also why is it a high capacity magazine. I hate that term, they are standard

 

[Hoon]

It's tough to argue that the best selling rifle in America is especially dangerous or unusual.

That said, you never know.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

It's tough to argue that the best selling rifle in America is especially dangerous or unusual.

That said, you never know.

so is a nail gun or an axe. A lever action 44Mag for that matters. That statement is very vague.

 

[xtry51]

This is a very dangerous case no matter what decision they make.

 

[Hoover]

This is the 2nd dupe, knuckle drgger posted this in one of his threads the other day.

SCOTUS will decide if they are going to hear the case, they have not yet and unless they accept it, it's not potentially good or bad. I believe they only need 4 judges to accept it as a case. But if those judges don't think they can get the 5th, they won't take the risk and a bad decision.

Kennedy is the wild card but votes good on 2a. If you skim the decison from the 7th, it was brutal. Just a tough of facts wrong, getting laws in other states wrong, etc. A high school class could have written a better decision.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

This is the 2nd dupe, knuckle drgger posted this in one of his threads the other day.

SCOTUS will decide if they are going to hear the case, they have not yet and unless they accept it, it's not potentially good or bad. I believe they only need 4 judges to accept it as a case. But if those judges don't think they can get the 5th, they won't take the risk and a bad decision.

Kennedy is the wild card but votes good on 2a. If you skim the decison from the 7th, it was brutal. Just a tough of facts wrong, getting laws in other states wrong, etc. A high school class could have written a better decision.

This. The other thread is here: http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...reme-Court-to-take-up-assault-rifle-ban-case?

I actually think Roberts might be a wild card as well as Kennedys. Roberts seems (to me) to be very deferential to government authority and reluctant to rule against elected bodies. But that's just me.

The 7th circuit opinion really bad:

If a ban on semi‐automatic guns and large‐capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that’s a substantial benefit.

There was one dissenting judge on the panel. You can read the opinion of the court and the dissent here.

I don't think they'll take it for several reasons:

1) By guessing 'no' I'll always be right more than 99% of the time.
2) I think the justices will wait for more lower courts to rule on AWBs before taking it up themselves.
3) I'd be surprised if an AWB case will be their vehicle for further defining the bounds of the 2A
4) I also think that gun control is too much of a political hot potato at the moment. If they strike down the Highland Park ban they guarantee that gun control will be front and center in the 2016 presidential election.

 

[Varmint]

It's tough to argue that the best selling rifle in America is especially dangerous or unusual.

That said, you never know.

And all the cops are now being issued dangerous and unusual firearms?

 

[Hoover]

This. The other thread is here: http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...reme-Court-to-take-up-assault-rifle-ban-case?

I actually think Roberts might be a wild card as well as Kennedys. Roberts seems (to me) to be very deferential to government authority and reluctant to rule against elected bodies. But that's just me.

The 7th circuit opinion really bad:



There was one dissenting judge on the panel. You can read the opinion of the court and the dissent here.

I don't think they'll take it for several reasons:

1) By guessing 'no' I'll always be right more than 99% of the time.
2) I think the justices will wait for more lower courts to rule on AWBs before taking it up themselves.
3) I'd be surprised if an AWB case will be their vehicle for further defining the bounds of the 2A
4) I also think that gun control is too much of a political hot potato at the moment. If they strike down the Highland Park ban they guarantee that gun control will be front and center in the 2016 presidential election.

Some of the cases, it's hard to tell if it's roberts or kennedy who make such tepid, incremental opinions. Look at what they'ed decided on affirmative action of the past 8 yrs. Instead of ruling affirmative action is discrimination as it clearly is, they've said it meekly and in very incremental decisions which have been basically ignored by the university of texas which was sued in one case and is back in another case this term. Hopefully this time SCOTUS finally killed affirmative action, at least for colleges but they'll probably do another tepid ruling and end up with another case before them in 2 years.

I'm hopeful they'll end forced joining of public unions in the case this term, feidriches v california teachers union but it will probably again be an incremental ruling against public unions. If the rule correctly and with force, it will make public union membership voluntary. With out the forced union due collection, at least 1/3 will leave the unions and really dry up a lot of their money and power. 98% (literally) of the teachers unions money goes to D's, AFSCME, SEIU and other public unions give similar %. It will really hurt D's if joining a public union is not a condition of the job.

They are hearing the union case, a decision by june '16.

I agree roberts seems to be very deferrential to gov't often.