Supreme court wont hear challenges to assult weapon ban

[Prepped and ready]

A friend of mine told me about this this afternoon.

Dont know if this has been brought up today or not, so I figured I would toss it out there.

Hope the link works.http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2...-ban/73817344/

[sigstroker]

At least they admitted this:

Acting only days after two Muslim terrorists killed 14 people and wounded 21 others in San Bernardino, Calif.,

[Rainbow Warrior]

Impeach, simple as that.

[sandsnow]

How about a decision based on the 2A and case law, instead of perception and feelings?

[Librarian]

Discussion of the Highland Park case/cert denied is most useful in the thread in National.

[lchaim7]

I was thinking about this all day yesterday. More importantly, how does this affect California? I know this was specifically in relation to Highland Park, Ill., but what are the implications for me as potential owner of an AR 15 or an AK 47? Is there a possibility that these kinds of rifles might be banned nationwide or in places like CA? I'm thinking of purchasing one of these rifles sooner than later if there's a possibility that CA may try to make it very difficult to obtain.

[nick]

So, the feelings ruling stands... Can we sue CA based on the fact that AWB hurts my feelings? This logic seems acceptable to the Supreme court.

[scbauer]

So sad.......

"If a ban on semi‐automatic 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," said Judge Frank Easterbrook.

[Prepped and ready]

It is sad. I did a little more looking into this. You can pretty much kiss your gun rights goodby.

Also from the looks of it, if Newsom is elected, he will get his way with gun control with no way to fight his decision untill the supreme court is "ready" to hear any defense. No Challenges means no defense on a motion.

So glad Im leaving this state.

[JDay]

It's time to fire all the Justices involved.

[alpha_romeo_XV]

There is both a California Supreme Court and a United States Supreme Court. It would be helpful if articles were clear up front (headline) about which one has made a decision.

[bountyhunter]

How about a decision based on the 2A and case law

OK, here is case law and legal precedent: the federal government enacted and enforced a ban on AW's for a decade. It was deemed constitutional at that time.

How is it so amazing that the SCOTUS would take that as a precedent to follow?

Bottom line is the government does have the right to ban guns it deems to dangerous for public safety. We may not AGREE, but they do have the right to ban overly dangerous weapons (ie machine guns) until they ban so many that it restricts the ability to own a gun at all.

The decision of the SCOTUS is pretty much given.

[Prepped and ready]

It is the US Supreme Court decision

[JDay]

OK, here is case law and legal precedent: the federal government enacted and enforced a ban on AW's for a decade. It was deemed constitutional at that time.

How is it so amazing that the SCOTUS would take that as a precedent to follow?

Bottom line is the government does have the right to ban guns it deems to dangerous for public safety. We may not AGREE, but they do have the right to ban overly dangerous weapons (ie machine guns) until they ban so many that it restricts the ability to own a gun at all.

The decision of the SCOTUS is pretty much given.

Your reasoning flys in the face of the purpose of the Second Amendment. And the Second Amendment wasn't ratified in 1994.

[robodeer]

So it's non-constitutional to have a national AWB, but it's ok to have state AWBs, basically?