Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-11-2019, 11:48 AM
JonnyGSX JonnyGSX is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 76
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default Why haven't any state "assault weapons" bans been heard by SCOTUS?

With heller on the books it seems that all handguns are clearly protected by the second amendment. By the same case I personally believe all semi automatic rifles like the most common rife in the US the AR15 are also protected. But multiple states have various forms of "assault weapons" bans. When this seems to clearly be unconstitutional why has the Supreme court refused to hear any of the cases regarding the bans? Specifically are there certain justices who are unwilling to hear the cases? In their refusals do they ever issue statements about why they refuse to hear the case?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-11-2019, 11:54 AM
vino68's Avatar
vino68 vino68 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 509
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

This has been debated here.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-11-2019, 12:12 PM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 460
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The short answer is the pro 2a judges aren't sure they have a reliable majority. So they have not taken any cases, remember not taking a case means little for future rulings where bad rulings can be hard to work around.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-11-2019, 12:17 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,901
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vino68 View Post
This has been debated here.


Anyways-

We don't know for sure. But based on things ex-judges have said, heller+mcdonald transcript, what types of cases have been denied, and the current political climate, the reason an AWB case has not been heard is most likely a combination of politics and Justice Kennedy.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-11-2019, 12:57 PM
Tango_Down's Avatar
Tango_Down Tango_Down is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Hill Valley
Posts: 435
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

They are waiting for RBG to die in 20 years.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-11-2019, 1:11 PM
California_Deplorable's Avatar
California_Deplorable California_Deplorable is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: A van down by the river.
Posts: 3,737
iTrader: 35 / 100%
Default

Its actually pretty simple. Assault weapon laws have absolutely zero chance of passing strict scrutiny. Which the SCOTUS, even a liberal SCOTUS, would be forced to apply. So what do they do? Simply dodge the issue and defer to the lower courts to make up their own interpretations (none of which apply strict scrutiny) as they see fit based on their regional jurisdictions. Its really a very simple yet effective strategy.
__________________
The OPINIONS expressed herein are NOT legal advice.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-11-2019, 1:15 PM
nedro nedro is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,396
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tango_Down View Post
They are waiting for RBG to die in 20 years.
Here's to hoping that RGB has dirt on the Clintons!
__________________
Here in California; Law abiding Citizens are simply Useful Idiots and Criminals are a Protected Species.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-11-2019, 1:56 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 38,942
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Politics, not litigation. Moved.
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.


Gregg Easterbrook’s “Law of Doomsaying”: Predict catastrophe no later than ten years hence but no sooner than five years away — soon enough to terrify people but distant enough that they will not remember that you were wrong.


Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-11-2019, 2:03 PM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 4,774
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

There is no way to really know why the Supreme Court doesn’t take a case except the rare times they tell us. Otherwise there can be all sorts of reasons, and ascribing a reason is pure speculation.

The Supreme Court receives something like 10,000 petitions for certiorari in a year and will hear only 70 to 80, or so, cases.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-11-2019, 2:21 PM
riderr riderr is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 4,048
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

If I recall correctly, the last assault weapon ban cert was turned down by SCOTUS with Kennedy The Flipper on the bench. Rumors said Kennedy didn't want any more gun cases after Peruta and McDonald.
Since, Kennedy resignation, Roberts took The Flipper title under the pressure and threats from Democrats.
IMHO, if RBG is replaced by another Constitutionalist, we'll have a chance to get 2A restored and repaired. Before then, I doubt SCOTUS would take such a case
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-11-2019, 2:34 PM
Dano3467 Dano3467 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: 85 mi south of Oregon
Posts: 6,610
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

These (that regular joe owns) are not Assault weapons
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-12-2019, 1:04 AM
gunsandrockets's Avatar
gunsandrockets gunsandrockets is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,508
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyGSX View Post
With heller on the books it seems that all handguns are clearly protected by the second amendment. By the same case I personally believe all semi automatic rifles like the most common rife in the US the AR15 are also protected. But multiple states have various forms of "assault weapons" bans. When this seems to clearly be unconstitutional why has the Supreme court refused to hear any of the cases regarding the bans? Specifically are there certain justices who are unwilling to hear the cases? In their refusals do they ever issue statements about why they refuse to hear the case?
Wisdom from the master. Heed him.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2016/09/t...ond-amendment/
__________________
Guns don't kill people, Democrats kill people
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-12-2019, 7:39 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 13,716
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

The SCOTUS is done with gun cases. Lower court rulings will stand.

Welcome to disfunctional America. Better get used to it.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-12-2019, 8:03 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,156
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

The same reason we don't call a flower a rose.

The same reason we're not supposed to pass laws to make legal that which is already legal.

The same reason we're not supposed to pass laws to make that which is already illegal illegal.

The same reason we don't call a spade a trowel.

...and on and on.

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-12-2019, 9:15 AM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 13,165
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

While I would hope "in common use" prevails over prohibitions on "dangerous" weapons I have two concerns. Since Heller addressed self-defense in the home would "in common use" be restricted to that function, rather than firearms possessed and used for a variety of reasons? And how do we define dangerous? Conventional bombs have killed more people than atomic weapons - which is more "dangerous"? Mosquitos kill more people each year than do bears, does that make them more dangerous? Most would have no issue walking through the woods encountering mosquitos, a bear - not so much.

I'd hope the arbitrary nature and contrived definition of "assault weapon" is addressed in any decision.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-12-2019, 9:27 AM
k1dude's Avatar
k1dude k1dude is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: la Republika Popular de Kalifornistan
Posts: 8,668
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

We need at least one more constitutionalist judge on SCOTUS before even considering bringing up one of these cases. That's why we need Trump re-elected. It's all about his judicial appointments.

Ginsberg is half dead and hanging on as long as she can for the simple reason she's hoping a leftist will win the presidency. If Trump wins re-election, expect her to retire or keel over immediately. Then, after Trump appoints another constitutionalist to SCOTUS, we can begin to address these unconstitutional bans.

But, I'd prefer at least 2 more constitutionalist appointments. That won't likely happen under Trump's watch though.
__________________
“Show me a young conservative and I'll show you a man without a heart. Show me an old liberal and I'll show you a man without a brain.” - Sir Winston Churchill

“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!” - Senator Barry Goldwater

Last edited by k1dude; 09-12-2019 at 9:33 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-12-2019, 11:20 AM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is offline
Code Monkey
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: ҚФꙦꙦѤ ꙆꚈҊԂ ™
Posts: 1,077
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gunsandrockets View Post
Quote:
Unfortunately, given the major party nominees this election, the prospect of seeing even one such Justice confirmed in the next four years could not be closer to zero.
I guess we'll see if he's correct if NYSRPA comes down the line
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-12-2019, 11:32 AM
SemperInExcretiaSumus's Avatar
SemperInExcretiaSumus SemperInExcretiaSumus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 124
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I would like to point out that two judges on SCOTUS, many more in the federal circuits, and the national level (executive branch and both legislative houses) political landscape has changed significantly since the author wrote that post, it's dated September 2016. So there's that.

That was when all of the so called "experts" were still saying Clinton by a landslide. I only wish I could be THAT wrong in my analysis and still have a job.

Last edited by SemperInExcretiaSumus; 09-12-2019 at 11:35 AM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 5:21 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.