Supreme Court upholding CA assault weapons ban?

[chip3757]

Read this on CNN's coverage of McDonald.

Courts have generally upheld other cities' restrictions on semiautomatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns. The conservative high court majority has in recent years upheld a California ban on assault rifles, similar to a federal ban that expired in 2004

When did CA's assault weapons law go before the supreme court?

[tommyid1]

Huh

[G60]

? what's so difficult to understand about his question?

[SAN compnerd]

I believe thats true, but I will let someone else chime in with the specifics. Of course CNN is going to spin this great win.

[RRangel]

The collective rights argument is now destroyed.

[RomanDad]

Read this on CNN's coverage of McDonald.



When did CA's assault weapons law go before the supreme court?

It didnt. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Silvera.... Thats not the same as ruling in favor of the ban.

[Crom]

Read this on CNN's coverage of McDonald.



When did CA's assault weapons law go before the supreme court?

It was the supreme court of California, not the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

It was this case the news was referring to: http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/Kasler-v-Lockyer.pdf

[OleCuss]

OK, until 7 a.m. the 2nd Amendment did not apply to the states. Meaning the State of Kalifornia could violate your RKBA with impunity - and it did/does.

While I've not read the SCOTUS ruling, I'd be surprised if the McDonald decision addresses "Assault Weapons" to any great extent. If it did, it would probably be a bland statement mostly along the lines that they aren't ruling on the constitutionality of the AWB. After all, the question in McDonald was rather narrowly focused and doesn't come close to requesting the lifting of our AWB.

The big change from today is that we now have a federal right to have the RKBA recognized throughout our nation. Now we can have our cases heard in Federal courts as the RKBA now has federal standing. (I'm probably using the wrong terminology since I'm no lawyer by any stretch).

So if "Assault Weapons" are addressed or not addressed in McDonald - don't worry overly much as they really weren't much of a part of this case and other aspects of federal law may be more important in reversing that ban than a straight 2A argument.

You should also not be surprised at federal courts not defending us when the 2A was not incorporated.

[motorhead]

not to mention it has little in common with the klinton awb. the antis are putting on a brave face and trying not to think of all the money they're going to waste.

[E-120]

I read that on CNN as well. What I want to know is how will this effect us on getting tax stamp toys like silencers and SBRs?

[PitchMan]

not to mention it has little in common with the klinton awb. the antis are putting on a brave face and trying not to think of all the money they're going to waste.

Indeed, they don't want to lose donations/funding at this point, so naturally they will keep spinning it thier way.

[stitchnicklas]

so now we can have magazine caps and bullet buttons heard in federal court instead of anti-gun california court??

[tonelar]

we can have them heard in CA court/ just now the CA justices have the weight of 2A to contend with...
this is all kinds of AWESOME!

[OleCuss]

so now we can have magazine caps and bullet buttons heard in federal court instead of anti-gun california court??

What tonelar said.

But the recourse to Federal courts is not to be underestimated. It means that if the state and state courts are acting against your RKBA you have standing to take a case to the Federal courts and be heard there.

[bwiese]

so now we can have magazine caps and bullet buttons heard in federal court instead of anti-gun california court??

Um, I don't think we need to take BulletButtons to Fed court.

We've won on that already , Ca DOJ is not opposing us.

We will be bringing Non-Bullet-Button situations up the line