Federal Court Upholds Assault Weapons Ban.

[Armorer-at-Law]

I think I see an appeal on the horizon.

This was the appeal. SCOTUS does not usually take up a case because they think the lower court reached the wrong conclusion or even got the law wrong. They usually wait for a spit in the circuits that leaves people being treated differently in different geographic regions under the same law.

 

[CowTowner]

Posts like this are the reason I ask the questions I do. Can't learn if you don't ask. Thanks for the education, Armorer-at-Law.

 

[thallub]

They usually wait for a spit in the circuits that leaves people being treated differently in different geographic regions under the same law.

SCOTUS has not taken on a Second Amendment case since Heller and McDonald. Despite appeals courts splits, SCOTUS refused to grant cert in a NJ case that could have resolved those splits. SCOTUS procedures require that four justices agree to hear the case. The case is Drake v. Jerejian:

The justices without comment turned down a request to review whether New Jersey’s law requiring “justifiable need” to get a handgun permit infringes on Second Amendment rights.

The court has not accepted a major gun case since its twin decisions that found there is a right to gun ownership in the home and that it applies to both federal and state government attempts at gun control.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...f0fcd6-d457-11e3-95d3-3bcd77cd4e11_story.html

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I think the court feels it did what it needed to do and is happy with Scalia's view of reasonable restrictions. There is not a push for a more pro-active push for more gun rights decisions.

 

[ATN082268]

Our path...

This appears to be yet another federal judge who feels that as long as you and I have access to some kind of gun, our 2nd Amendment is protected.

That would be like saying you have free speech so long as you can talk about certain topics. Unfortunately I think you describe the general path we are on and likely to stay on regarding the private ownership of guns. Where will it end? Probably "smart" guns the government can disable at their leisure.

 

[mehavey]

If I read the gist of the last series of posts here, a federal ban on assault weapons
and/or their magazines/ammunition could be invoked by "stroke of the pen", and the
courts now have precedent to leave it in place.

Notwithstanding the reaction/backing off of the recent attempt at banning "armor piercing"
5.56 ammunition, I seriously doubt Congress could/would override such an action with
a veto-proof majority.

Thoughtful opinion welcome.

 

[carguychris]

If I read the gist of the last series of posts here, a federal ban on assault weapons
and/or their magazines/ammunition could be invoked by "stroke of the pen", and the
courts now have precedent to leave it in place.

I'm not sure what you mean by "stroke of the pen", but enacting a new federal AWB would clearly require new legislation - it could not be done by executive order.

 

[LancelotLink]

I don't post here that often but this thread deserves a de-lurk.

The biggest threat to the 2A is becoming assault weapons bans.

Neither Congress or State Legislators can opt out of the Constitution. They can't carve out an exception to free speech, the right to counsel, the right against self incrimination, or the right to vote. The Constitution trumps laws that purport to do that.

Except for assault weapons.

Assault weapons are arbitrary creatures of statute, and are defined as the legislative branch sees fit. If assault weapons, as defined by the legislative branch, fall outside the constitution, the implications are enormous and go far beyond the right to keep and bear arms.

The 2A may wind up being the first casualty of this line of thinking and rulings, but it certainly won't be the last.

 

[mehavey]

...but enacting a new federal AWB would clearly require new legislation....

I cannot argue against the fact that because Congress actually let the AWB expire,
legal beagles could make the case that active legislation is req'd to re-impose it.

On the other hand, I remain concerned that the current leadership could/would issue
such an order -- and though it likely would be immediately subject to lawsuit -- the
court case(s) would drag on for years as the damage cont'd to sink in.....

 

[JERRYS.]

this case would have never been subject to bias in a federal court if the voters of the great state of Illinois cleaned their own house first. elections have consequences.

 

[44 AMP]

Congress actually let the AWB expire,

Point of order here, ..Congress did not LET the AWB expire. They were REQUIRED to allow its expiration, due to the sunset clause written into it. (the one good thing about the entire law)

A lot of people worked very hard to pass new bills to extend the AWB and to make it permanent. THIS time, they were not in the majority. Other people worked hard to ensure the AWB sunset, on schedule, as written. It did.

And after it did, the world did not end.

They can't carve out an exception to free speech,

There are people working to do that as we speak. In fact, some "news" outlet's first question, after reporting on the Texas shooting at the "free speech event", was NOT the familiar "ban assault weapons/ban guns" mantra, but was instead "should we limit free speech?"

Since Heller and MacDonald, the antis have shifted, slightly. These rulings have given a modern reaffirmation to the 2nd Amendment, and they can't do much about that. So the new "holy writ" for their cause is that if you or I have some kind of legal access to some kind of firearm at all, then our rights are not violated.

The same logic would dictate that as long as you were able to worship some God, some where, your freedom of religion was not violate.

OF course, they say "that's not the same thing!" but really bottom line, its about your right to make your own choices, and I see that as the same thing.

 

[mehavey]

Since Heller and MacDonald, the antis have shifted, slightly. These rulings
have given a modern reaffirmation to the 2nd Amendment, and they can't
do much about that. So the new "holy writ" for their cause is that if you or
I have some kind of legal access to some kind of firearm at all, then our
rights are not violated.

I believe you have just spelled out how a de facto AWB [named anything de jure but
actually that, of course] could/would be put in place. Did I presume a false logic here?

(Gawd I hope your basic legal premise of legislation-req'd is correct. But I fear....)

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

AWB and the like are common in antigun states. They will be supported by the Zumbo wing of the gun world. The modern sporting rifle plays into their hands. As does the folks here who thing higher capacity guns and extra mags are delusional carry choices.

I don't think SCOTUS will go near state restrictions as I said before.

That would be like saying you have free speech so long as you can talk about certain topics.

Sad to say, I had lunch with a 'gun guy' who was in favor of government control of events such as the Garland Cartoon event because it was the same as shouting fire in a crowded theater. That's no different in kind from a 7 round NY SAFE act restriction.

 

[mehavey]

...lunch with a 'gun guy' who was in favor of government control
of events such as the Garland Cartoon event** because it was the
same as shouting fire...

But if you ask such "just reasonable rules" people if we should ban public
flag-stomping and urine soaked crucifixes in "art" exhibits, they withdraw
in absolutely breathless horror of any such limitations on 'free expression'.

Sauce for the goose is the best argument these folks.
Ban one...? Ban ALL.




**
We could have written the blame-the-victim script on this one ahead of time.

.

 

[44 AMP]

shouting fire in a crowded theater.

Did you happen to remind him that there is no penalty for shouting "fire" in a crowded theater when there IS a fire?

Or maybe ask him why he is in favor of giving terrorism the victory they want?

If you pay the Danegeld, you are never rid of the Dane.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I explained all the issues. Of course, he went away thinking he was still correct.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The 2A may wind up being the first casualty of this line of thinking and rulings, but it certainly won't be the last.

Next up: "Assault newspapers."

 

[mehavey]

Next up: "Assault newspapers."

Naaaaaggghh.
Next up is an executive action on Assault Cartoons.

No wait.
Did I say "next"?

Naaaagghh.
Should've said "already"
http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/06/m...xt-time-take-your-free-speech-someplace-else/

 

[Armed_Chicagoan]

this case would have never been subject to bias in a federal court if the voters of the great state of Illinois cleaned their own house first. elections have consequences.

Don't blame me, I vote for the other person... in the rare instance there's another person to vote for.

 

[bandaid1]

The thing that still makes me scratch my head is the Wilson v. Cook County case. That case was filed in 2010, I believe, and is now on hold(until October 2015) due to this ruling. Now, Highland Parks law is a clone of Cook Counties law. Not being a Lawyer, I don't get how the Highland Parks 2013 law gets priority over a case that has been going on for over 3 years and had already been herd by Illinois Supreme Court.