SCOTUS Refuses to Hear AWB Case, Creates Inconsistencies

[ShotgunBlast]

The U.S. Supreme Court refused today to hear a major Second Amendment case out of Illinois which asked whether a city's ban on "assault weapons" violates the U.S. Constitution. By refusing to hear the case, the Court has allowed a lower court decision upholding the gun ban to stand. Writing in dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, faulted the other justices for giving their blessings to a lower court decision "that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents" and "eviscerates many of the protections recognized in Heller and McDonald."



https://reason.com/blog/2015/12/07/scot ... ndment-ass

[SHMIV]

It's almost as if the leftward leaning overlords have decided to stop pretending that the Constitution means anything to them.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[MarcSpaz]

Wow... what a bunch of crap. But what could we possibly expect from a left leaning SCOTUS?

[OakRidgeStars]

I don't see either Heller or McDonald ever being stricken down even as their respective cities have chosen to ignore the SCOTUS and enact more restrictions to prevent citizens from arming themselves for self defense.

Regardless, the precedent stands which will help groups like the NRA and SAF win even more cases in the future.

[Remek]

I am not sure anyone remembers, but its my opinion that SCOTUS is no longer ruling constitutionally, but simply by their own whim.

I think the thing here is that they know banning assault weapons at this time would piss off a great number of gun buyers. In fact, it would estrange and anger many who dont even know about guns, as we know the non gun owner is generally on our side these days, due to polls. Given that, they cannot put the nail in the coffin without risking tipping over the canoe and causing serious anger in the citizenry. So, they support the ban by not bringing it up to decide.

Not sure i said anything you dont know, but theres my take. They will rule it constitutional if they exist in another 10-20 years.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[MarcSpaz]

You right... unless a Republican or Conservative gets elected to the White House. Then they will rule the ban as Constitutional and blame the Republicans.

[AlanM]

AFAIK the reason the US Supreme Court refused to hear the case was because it's actually a state case.
The state has a preemption statute on the books with respect to assault weapons.
See:http://ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/98/098-0063.htm
and scroll down to:
(430 ILCS 65/13.1) (from Ch. 38, par. 83-13.1)
Sec. 13.1. Preemption.(c)

Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Illinois

I don't know if the city in question had their law on the books prior to the preemption deadline of July 20, 2013.