https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf In 2015 the US Supreme Court rejected an appeal of a total assault weapons ban in Highland Park, Illinois. The ban ended all sales of assault weapons and required all existing ones to be turned in, moved outside the city, or face a fine of $1,000 and up to 6 months in prison. The law also banned possession of magazines over 10 rounds. The law was appealed to the US Supreme Court. The EXACT same Supreme Court that defended 2nd Amendnment rights in the McDonald and Heller cases. What does that tell you? That tells you that the EXACT same Justices who defend the right to possess a handgun in the home and to keep rifles and shotguns ready for use to defend the home, ALSO believed that The States have the discretion and authority to regulate what guns people can possess to defend their homes. The Supreme Court in the Heller and McDonald decisions believed that the right to keep & bear firearms was NOT without limits, and that not all guns can be possessed anywhere at any time. And that many existing gun regulations were still Constitutional. By rejecting the Highland Park case, the same SCOTUS that gave us Heller & McDonald told us that assault-weapons bans are legal and Constitutional. And by the way, Heller and McDonald were decided 5 to 4, while the REJECTION of the appeal of the assault weapons ban case was decided 7 to 2. Food for thought.
More food for thought. The majority opinion in Friedman stated: "If it has no other effect, Highland Park's ordinance may increase the public's sense of safety. Mass shootings are rare, but they are highly salient, and people tend to overestimate the likelihood of salient events. See George F. Loewenstein, Christopher K. Hsee, Elke U. Weber & Ned Welch, Risk as Feelings, 127 Psychological Bulletin 267, 275–76 (2001); Eric J. Johnson, John Hershey, Jacqueline Meszaros & Howard Kunreuther, Framing, Probability Distortions, and Insurance Decisions, 7 J. Risk & Uncertainty 35 (1993). If a ban on semiautomatic 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." Shall we allow any locality to pass laws that make the public feel safer for a substantial benefit based on a perception of risk?
that was not the view of the Supreme Court, only the Appeals court so its irrelevent. Supreme Court of Scalia voted to REJECT the appeal, 7 to 2, because they believed the States have some authority to regulate what guns people can possess and where, as they stated in the Heller decision
From the very first line of the linked dissent: JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA joins, dissenting from the denial of certiorari. "If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing." "Certiorari is a Latin word meaning "to be informed of, or to be made certain in regard to". It is also the name given to certain appellate proceedings for re-examination of actions of a trial court, or inferior appeals court. The U.S. Supreme Court still uses the term certiorari in the context of appeals. Petition for Writ of Certiorari. (informally called "Cert Petition.") A document which a losing party files with the Supreme Court asking the Supreme Court to review the decision of a lower court. It includes a list of the parties, a statement of the facts of the case, the legal questions presented for review, and arguments as to why the Court should grant the writ. Writ of Certiorari. A decision by the Supreme Court to hear an appeal from a lower court. Cert. Denied. The abbreviation used in legal citations to indicate that the Supreme Court denied a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the case being cited. Someone with a legal claim files a lawsuit in a trial court, such as a U.S. District Court, which receives evidence, and decides the facts and law. Someone who is dissatisfied with a legal decision of the trial court can appeal. In the federal system, this appeal usually would be to the U.S. Court of Appeals, which is required to consider and rule on all properly presented appeals. The highest federal court in the U.S. is the Supreme Court. Someone who is dissatisfied with the ruling of the Court of Appeals can request the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision of the Court of Appeals. This request is named a Petition for Writ of Certiorari. The Supreme Court can refuse to take the case. In fact, the Court receives thousands of "Cert Petitions" per year, and denies all but about one hundred. If the Court accepts the case, it grants a Writ of Certiorari. "Review on writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but a judicial discretion. A petition for writ of certiorari will be granted only for compelling reasons." Rule 10, Rules of the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court's certiorari process is covered in Rules 10-16, Rules of the U.S. Supreme Court. 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." http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/certiorari.htm
And another fun fact, if there were only 2 Justices that wanted to hear the appeal, and 7 did not, that means 2 Justices that rejected the repeal would need to die or retire in order for an assault weapons ban appeal to EVER be heard. and Thomas would have to not die or retire. what does that tell us? Assault Weapons bans will remain the law of the land for many years to come. They are not going anywhere anytime soon.
every single assault weapons ban case has been rejected by the Supreme Court, in a 7 to 2 vote. there have been at least 4 appeals, including one with the exact same court that gave us Heller. all have been rejected, by a majority GREATER than the Heller decision. its fair to assume those 7 Justices believe assault weapons bans are Constitutional.
You still don't understand how SCOTUS operates. If 7 of 9 justices believe assault weapons bans are Constitutional, why haven't they accepted a case and affirmed any of these lower court decisions?
why hear a case if they accept the lower rulings? clearly the 7 Justices accept the lower rulings and feel no need to listen to any contest against them
they have refused to hear at least 4 AWB appeal cases. maybe judges should stop taking such cases, rather than wasting the Supreme Court's time with appeals that are doomed to be rejected.
Or perhaps the legislatures of the various states should simply cease and desist with trying to restrict legal firearms ownership.
How many times is it necessary for yourself to be educated and informed that the above is not an accurate representation of what is being done? Because if the united state supreme court decides to hear such once Donald Trump has appointed another justice, or one of the four liberal judges should die or retire, they will all lose simultaneously. It does not matter how justified they believe they are, if all of their laws are ruled unconstitutional at once. If even one state should fall, all will fall at the same time, and every prohibition on so-called "assault weapons" will be undone at the same time. Supporting laws that are blatantly unconstitutional, especially when confirmed as such, has the potential to cost them future elections, and greatly upset the judiciary in the individual states, and perhaps nationally.
you need 2 more justices to die or retire to even get SCOTUS to hear the appeal. and thats not likely to happen by 2020.
Do not assume such to be a confirmed fact. Once there is no longer a four-to-four ratio between justices who are conservative and liberal in terms of political ideology, with one swing justice who can be bought by either side, they may be quite willing to take up a second amendment case and expand the scope of what it protects.
only takes 4 Justices to take a case. right now they only have MAYBE 2 who are interested in any AWB appeals. that wont change for a while.
And it is beyond the comprehension of yourself that the conservative justices, who may have disagreed with the idea of having to make concessions to Anthony Kennedy to buy his vote, are working to prevent anymore such abuses from being carried out? It is assumed on the part of yourself that the justices of the united state supreme court are beyond engaging in party politics?
Not seven, only two of them. If only two of the known conservative justices are voting to not hear an appeal on a second amendment case, it is not out of the realm of possibilities. If all four liberal justices believe there is the possibility of losing the case, they would also have reason to object to taking up an appeal, as it would further undermine the position.
its paranoid nonsense. more logical to believe that they think the States have some discretion and authority to regulate firearms, and until all semi-auto guns are banned, the AWB is legal.