Supreme court wont hear challenges to assult weapon ban

[Beatone]

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

Yup.

[bountyhunter]

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

My reasoning states the obvious: the SCOTUS doesn't often waste time reviewing settled case law unless there is an obvious reason. There is precedent that the FED can outlaw or restrict a weapon deemed too dangerous (machine gun) and the FED has already outlawed the specific weapon in question. That means there is legal precedent that the law was not unconstitutional. If your argument is they got it wrong before and should reverse it now, that RARELY happens with the SCOTUS.

[bountyhunter]

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

How is or was the national AWB ever unconstitutional? The law simply expired, it was never ruled uncon. And if the House wasn't held by the GOP, it would have been renewed by now.

The ten-year ban was passed by the U.S. Congress on September 13, 1994, and signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day. The ban only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment, and it expired on September 13, 2004, in accordance with its sunset provision.

check the facts

[robodeer]

Supreme court wont hear challenges to assult weapon ban

How is or was the national AWB ever unconstitutional? The law simply expired, it was never ruled uncon. And if the House wasn't held by the GOP, it would have been renewed by now.



check the facts

I was thinking along the lines of Heller's "common usage" part. Maybe I'm off-base, though.

Edit: no idea if it would even be relevant.

[Jimi Jah]

The SCOTUS has determined the 2nd admendment must be sent to the states for approval under the 10th admendment.

[L84CABO]

One more nail in the COTUS. Won't be long now. Keep stocking ammo for the reset.

[hermosabeach]

POTUS with help select the next few supreme court judges...

I am sure Hillary has some friends lined up... for lifetime employment opportunities

[Prepped and ready]

The SCOTUS has determined the 2nd admendment must be sent to the states for approval under the 10th admendment.

Yeah. This basicly means we are screwed. So glad I plan on leaving this state in the next few years.

It may have to be sooner, depending how things go.

[Prepped and ready]

Something else I found. Some may have read this and for those who haven't, gets you thinking. Exactly how easy would it be for a state to make our 2nd amendment rights go away or even try to force us to give up our guns.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/12/economist-explains-6

[bountyhunter]

Something else I found. Some may have read this and for those who haven't, gets you thinking. Exactly how easy would it be for a state to make our 2nd amendment rights go away or even try to force us to give up our guns.

The Heller decision has locked in stone the RKBA. For a state to outright violate a law that the SCOTUS has ruled on is pretty serious. If any state had the chutzpah to do it, Kali might be the state but I kind of doubt it simply because of the logistics: trying to "collect the guns" would take a HUGE armed force and would certainly set off a lot of shooting incidents. I just don't see it happening anytime soon.

[Prepped and ready]

Well, as it looks right now, the politcal future of California is hell bent on removing or atleast completely halting the gun sales. I do noe believe they could disarm Californians, but they sure are goivng to do everything they can to make a Right and a sport much more difficult for us to enjoy.

Agreed Bounty Hunter.
My last link is fairly relevant as to why disarming would be difficult. 33m guns in California alone and Im sure no one here is going to give them up.

[ccmc]

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.

I had to look this up as I didn't follow it that closely at the time. There were at least five court challenges, but not one of them challenged the AWB on Second Amendment grounds. The challenges were based on "unconstitutionally vague", "restriction of interstate commerce", "equal protection" and similar.

Justice Thomas had an excellent dissent to the rejection of cert for Friedman. It's worth reading.