U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Gun Rights Group's Challenge to State Assault Weapon Ban

[Hissyspit]

Source: Bloomberg News

@BreakingNews: US Supreme Court declines to hear gun rights groups' challenge to Connecticut ban on assault weapons - SCOTUSblog https://t.co/XiVY8ecu2e/s/q0t9

@business: LATEST: Supreme Court refused to question assault-rifle bans in New York and Connecticut https://t.co/2529FXrYUc/s/-6Ej https://t.co/vllLmq7dYV/s/7zmt

New York, Connecticut Assault-Weapon Bans Let Stand by Top Court

Greg Stohr

June 20, 2016 — 9:32 AM EDT

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to question assault-rifle bans in New York and Connecticut, steering clear of an intensifying national debate after the shooting that killed 49 people in a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida.

Turning away two separate appeals, the justices left intact federal appeals court rulings that said the bans comply with the constitutional right to bear arms.

New York and Connecticut are among seven states that outlaw weapons similar to one used by Omar Mateen in the June 12 massacre.

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-06-20/new-york-connecticut-assault-weapon-bans-let-stand-by-top-court

[George II]

1. Excellent!

[CincyDem]

2. The "Won't do their job" Senate has created a "Can't do their job" SCOTUS

to be clear - I'm ecstatic that the ban will stand but, IIRC, only in a few circuits. Need 9 to make it federal.

[hack89]

7. There was never any real doubt that the AWB was constitutional

the problem that gun control advocates face is political and cultural, not legal. They simply don't have the public support needed to pass a federal ban.

[Igel]

12. It doesn't matter if all 9 circuit courts and the SCOTUS say the ban is constitutional.

If there are only bans in a few states.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, the only reason the AWB worked at the federal level in the '90s is because Congress has Constitutional authority to regulate interstate trade. All Congressional authority is granted and enumerated; it has none on its own any more than the President does.

Granted, over the years it's found greater and greater powers in the interstate commerce clause. Things that don't trade over the borders of a state can be found to somehow influence something that affects the ability to produce something that is traded. If you can regulate the end product of a long line of causes and affects it, apparently, means you can regulate everything along the way.

Rather like saying if you can regulate clean water because a creek crosses a state line that you can regulate how often somebody mows their backyard. Because, after all, that shortened grass produces less oxygen, and oxygen goes into making water that becomes dew or rain that becomes run-off that forms creeks that run across state lines.

[CincyDem]

15. Not really sure on the point here.

This particular pair of cases relates to CT and NY. I believe the decision leaving the ban as constitutional only effects the 2nd circuit since SCOTUS refused the case. That leaves VT as the only state that can add a ban. And that's at best a 50/50 proposition although Vermont gun owners have a pragmatic and socially responsible streak so it might happen. Were SCOTUS to have found the bad constitutional, I think there's a high probability that more states would participate, using the existing bans as their framework. So, eventually, it does matter if all 9 circuits and SCOTUS uphold a ban.

I also believe you're correct about the AWB being ICC based. But then again, adjudicating and regulating across state lines is one of the big reasons to have a federal government so I don't have have a problem with that.

What I'm unclear on is your point about mowing the lawn.

Rather like saying if you can regulate clean water because a creek crosses a state line that you can regulate how often somebody mows their backyard. Because, after all, that shortened grass produces less oxygen, and oxygen goes into making water that becomes dew or rain that becomes run-off that forms creeks that run across state lines.

Sounds like you're equating the absurdity of regulating mowing the lawn to mowing down a group of innocent folks with an assault rifle (AK, AR, SIG, whatever brand/model you like to choose)?

[rsdsharp]

39. This really isn't about having eight justices.

I can't really tell from the links, but I don't think this was a 4-4 split decision. As near as I can tell, the Court declined cert in these cases. It only takes four votes to grant cert.

[onehandle]

3. Tipping point reached, gun nuts. nt

[TeddyR]

4. Not sure a 3 state ban

Is a "tipping point." This isn't a surprise - with 8 justices evenly split the court wasn't going to take this case.

[hack89]

5. Strict gun control laws just failed in Rhode Island

if you can't pass strict gun control in a reliably Democratic New England state why do you think we have reached a tipping point?

[Just reading posts]

9. Letting individual states have their way on gun control is the "tipping point"? Observe:

Works for me.

[onehandle]

13. Any successful restriction or preservation of restrictions is progress.

When you guys post this animated gif, you demonstrate that you think gun control = total ban of guns.

As the country blues and crowds, you will lose ground fast.

[Just reading posts]

16. If any restriction on gun rights is "progress", exactly what is your goal? What's the end game?

[Orrex]

21. A reasonable end game...

is the formal recognition that a "well-regulated militia" does not mean "random gun owners operating with minimal legal oversight."

[Just reading posts]

28. Which means what, in terms of legislation? What restrictions do you want imposed on the RKBA?

[Orrex]

30. I've answered this many times, and I don't care to rehash it here in detail

I would eliminate high-volume clips and magazines (i,e., capable of holding more than three to five rounds).

I would like limits imposed on characteristics of firearms rather than the easily subverted gun-specific rules we've tried in the past

I would like tight regulation of gun show sales along with a three-business day waiting list for all firearm purchases.

I would like a publicly accessible database of gun registrations and background checks.


I'm wholly unimpressed by claims that "it'll never happen" or "Congress won't pass that," which simply indicate a lack of will and, by extension, acceptance of daily mass shootings in preference to passing legislation that should be a no-brainer.

[Just reading posts]

29. Which means what, in terms of legislation? What restrictions do you want imposed on the RKBA?

[Orrex]

31. I've answered this many times, and I don't care to rehash it here in detail

I would eliminate high-volume clips and magazines (i,e., capable of holding more than three to five rounds).

I would like limits imposed on characteristics of firearms rather than the easily subverted gun-specific rules we've tried in the past

I would like tight regulation of gun show sales along with a three-business day waiting list for all firearm purchases.

I would like a publicly accessible database of gun registrations and background checks.


I'm wholly unimpressed by claims that "it'll never happen" or "Congress won't pass that," which simply indicate a lack of will and, by extension, acceptance of daily mass shootings in preference to passing legislation that should be a no-brainer.

[Just reading posts]

32. So you plan on outlawing more than half the guns in America?

I would eliminate high-volume clips and magazines (i,e., capable of holding more than three to five rounds).


That would eliminate 99.99% of semiautomatic pistols.

Never going to happen. Just being realistic.

[Orrex]

33. Yes, I know that gun-enablers resist all efforts to correct the problem

They're very quick to dismiss proposed solutions while offering no feasible alternatives.

They have, in essence, thrown up their hands and accepted that guns are a plague that will never be cured.

Ban the manufacture, sale, trade and import of firearms capable of holding more than three to five rounds. Existing firearms could be "grandfathered" but new firearms that don't meet that standard would be banned.

And how many new firearms do we need, for fuck's sake? We have hundreds of millions already. How many more will it take before gun-enablers feel safe?

[Just reading posts]

35. Some problems don't have realistic solutions.

They have, in essence, thrown up their arms and accepted that guns are a plague that will never be cured. Ban the manufacture, sale, trade and import of firearms capable of holding more than three to five rouands.

A magazine is nothing but a box with a spring. You can print them out all day on a 3-D printer, and the technology is in its infancy. An all-metal 1911 was recently 3-D printed.

The genie's not going back in the bottle.

And how many new firearms do we need, for fuck's sake? We have hundreds of millions already. How many more will it take before gun-enablers feel safe?

15 million more per year, at current record level sales.

[Orrex]

38. "15 million more per year, at current record level sales."

Doesn't that seem sort of pathological? Outside of irrational fear and the insatiable hunger for profits, what possible reason can there be for such sales volume?

A magazine is nothing but a box with a spring. You can print them out all day on a 3-D printer, and the technology is in its infancy. An all-metal 1911 was recently 3-D printed.

I know that. Pass legislation rendering such manufacture a felony with a minimum sentence of 10 years per magazine produced with no chance of parole (along with lifelong ban on firearm ownership, of course).

[friendly_iconoclast]

41. The Supremes put paid to your proposals back in March, in an 8-0 decision:

I give you Caetano v. Massachusetts:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Cite as: 577 U. S. ____ (2016)
Per Curiam
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

JAIME CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME
JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS
No. 14–10078. Decided March 21, 2016


The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010). In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massachusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining “whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment.” 470 Mass. 774, 777, 26 N. E. 3d 688, 691 (2015).

The court offered three explanations to support its holding that the Second Amendment does not extend to stun guns. First, the court explained that stun guns are not protected because they “were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment.” Id., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. This is inconsistent with Heller’s clear statement that the Second Amendment “extends . . . to . . . arms . . . that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” 554 U. S., at 582.

The court next asked whether stun guns are “dangerous per se at common law and unusual,” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 694, in an attempt to apply one “important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms,” Heller, 554 U. S., at 627; see ibid. (referring to “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’”). In so doing, the court concluded that stun guns are “unusual” because they are “a thoroughly modern invention.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693–694. By equating “unusual” with “in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment,” the court’s second explanation is the same as the first; it is inconsistent with Heller for the same reason.

Finally, the court used “a contemporary lens” and found “nothing in the record to suggest that [stun guns] are readily adaptable to use in the military.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 694. But Heller rejected the proposition “that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624–625.

For these three reasons, the explanation the Massachusetts court offered for upholding the law contradicts this Court’s precedent. Consequently, the petition for a writ of certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted. The judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

I pointed out in another thread:

Also, don't count on this being overturned anytime soon:

Even if President Clinton names two or three utterly anti-gun justices
to the SC, that would still leave it with six or seven justices that signed their names to the above...

[Just reading posts]

43. It's a reaction to people saying they want to ban guns.

I can't imagine where they'd hear such a thing.



I know that. Pass legislation rendering such manufacture a felony with a minimum sentence of 10 years per magazine produced with no chance of parole (along with lifelong ban on firearm ownership, of course).

So....commit 2nd degree murder? It's your first offense, so you'll be out in ten years.

Make half a dozen 7 round magazines for your 1911? Life in prison, no parole!

Seems a bit irrational.

[Orrex]

44. Thanks, but gun-enablers are in no position to declare what is and what is not rational

I can't imagine where they'd hear such a thing.

From the NRA, obviously, along with its many surrogates in rightwing media and on DU who like to pump the "Obama wants to take yer gunz" propaganda.

Make half a dozen 7 round magazines for your 1911? Life in prison, no parole!

Then don't make half a dozen 7 round magazines for your 1911.

So, what's your solution to the daily mass shootings? 15M additional guns per year sure as hell aren't stopping them.

[Just reading posts]

47. And asserting that making half a dozen pistol mags should be punished more than murder is rational?

From the NRA, obviously, along with its many surrogates in rightwing media and on DU who like to pump the "Obama wants to take yer gunz" propaganda.

Oh, we don't need to listen to the NRA. Will you take the word of the Vice President on this matter?

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/response-your-petition-banning-ar-15-civilian-ownership-0v

To the creator and signers of this petition, I want to say this as plainly and clearly as possible: The President and I agree with you. Assault weapons and high-capacity magazines should be banned from civilian ownership.

He just said that he and the President think that the guns that I currently own should be made illegal for me to own.

How can that possibly be interpreted any way but that he wants the government to take them away from me?

So, what's your solution to the daily mass shootings? 15M additional guns per year sure as hell aren't stopping them.

Nothing is going to stop them. Ever.

But it is an undeniable fact that the murder rate is only half what it was a quarter century ago. This while the number of guns doubled (at least) in that period of time.

I'm not particularly worried about your proposal to put gun owners in jail for life, or any of the other equally absurd predictions about the future of gun control. Oh, there might be some modest restrictions in the future, similar to the useless AWB of 1994....but no one's taking my AR-15 away.

The wishes of some here to the contrary.

[Orrex]

49. Well, there's always room for another gun-enabler on my Ignore list.

No great loss there.

[Just reading posts]

50. Well, it's less effort than trying (and failing) to counter my arguments....I'll give you that.

Well, there's always room for another gun-enabler on my Ignore list.

Oh no! Now I can see your posts and you can't see mine!



Gee, you sure showed me!

[TeddyR]

51. The ignore list should be a last resort

I've got nobody on ignore, though there are a few who do nothing but throw slurs. We are better off listening to opposing views, even though we might not agree. The Internet has created too many bubbles for people to hang out with those who only agree with them.

[Skittles]

46. that is part of their paranoia

fuck them

[Paladin]

6. Did they ever divulge the location of Scalia's grave?

Wherever it is, I imagine the old bastard is spinning in it.......

[hack89]

8. If you understood Heller, you would not be saying that

he explicitly said that the 2A allows strict regulation of guns. All Heller said is that you have the right to own a handgun in your home for self defense. That's all.

[Recursion]

22. Scalia specifically said AWBs are Constitutional

Not sure why SCOTUS continuing that precedent would trouble him?

[Princess Turandot]

34. Unlikely...

He was cremated.

[Paladin]

40. Wise choice, in Scalia's case. (nt)

[Nihil]

53. As above, so below ...

[Agnosticsherbet]

10. Excellent. we are now moving again to a "Well regulated militia..." nt

Last edited Mon Jun 20, 2016, 11:14 AM - Edit history (1)

[Igel]

14. We've seldom had a "well regulated militia."

If, by well regulated, you mean a militia that has a lot of government rules, limitations, monitoring requirements, and other regulations imposed on it, not.

If you mean a well-equipped and well-trained militia, we've taken some incremental steps in that direction. Equipped is easy enough. Training the citizens, though, in proper care and use of their firearms is a different matter.

Then again, in many areas of the country I don't want the militia to be well regulated. If they could aim better it would just increase the homicide rate--but probably reduce the collateral damage of having innocent bystanders killed.

Remember: Language changes. The word "starve" originally just meant "die." "Lewd" just meant "not in the priesthood." If you aren't clear about meanings of words you really don't know what a text says and can't say anything meaningful about the text. Then again, if you aren't careful about the meanings of words you can't really say anything that can be relied upon to be meaningful.

[Paladin]

19. We sure as hell didn't have one.....

after that fuckhead Scalia essentially erased it from the Bill Of Rights.

[Agnosticsherbet]

20. But in modern terms, well regulated means, well, regulated. With Scala gone, the lie of "Original

intent" is passing and the constitution as a dead document is gone.

It was clear in Heller that guns could be regulated.

[Herman4747]

11. Supreme Court says "KAPOW!" to the gun worshippers! n/t

[hlthe2b]

17. Take that, the gun-obsessed

Good, for once...

[Initech]

18. Good move, SCOTUS!

[Recursion]

23. And that's kind of the problem: AWBs don't actually *do* anything

so they don't run the risk of being found unconstitutional. States can, if they want, regulate brand names goods can be sold under. I'm just not sure what the point is.

[lark]

24. Hip Hip Hurray for sanity and life.

[sarisataka]

25. And while everyone celebrates

Last edited Mon Jun 20, 2016, 01:10 PM - Edit history (1)

Resitrictions on one Amendment, SCOTUS pushes another further into irrelevancey. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141495020

Yet we trust our police enough that the majority of people want to give up due process and let the government expand the use of secret lists. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027934765

[appal_jack]

27. Indeed, that is a dreadful decision. nt

[Duckhunter935]

36. Yes it was

Now police can break the law with impunity

[rjsquirrel]

26. Great news eom

[forest444]

37. A big Thank You to Fat Tony.

For depriving us of your charming presence.

[Night Watchman]

42. Maybe we Den't need a Ninth Justice After All

I'm kidding, of course. But I have to say this 8-member court is working out much better than I thought it would!

[ManiacJoe]

45. It is amazing how many people still don't understand

what an "assault weapon" is and why these "assault weapon" bans are useless.

Why would anyone want to ban a gun based on its looks?!?!???

If you think a gun ban is necessary for whatever your goals, at least use logic and base the ban on the guns' functionality.

[passiveporcupine]

48. I"m curious how this will be handled

The measure criminalizes the sale or possession of

How will they handle the "possession of" for people in those states who already have these guns? Will they do buybacks? Will they go through gun sales records from gun shops that sold these weapons to try to track down who might have one?

[maindawg]

52. State by state

This is how you do it. By inches. Now we have a path a way forward. Very good news