Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SCOTUS Ruling On Gun Restrictions

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • SCOTUS Ruling On Gun Restrictions

    Is this the beginning of stricter gun regulations nationwide?


    The Supreme Court gave an apparent green light Monday to lawmakers who want to restrict the sale of guns such as the rapid-fire weapons that have been used in the recent wave of mass shootings from Paris to San Bernardino.The justices by a 7-2 vote turned down a 2nd Amendment challenge to a local ordinance in the Chicago suburb of Highland Park which banned the sale or possession of semiautomatic guns that carry more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
    In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said the high court, by refusing to consider a challenge to that law, was "relegating the 2nd Amendment to a second-class right."
    The court's decision was not a formal ruling -- the justices simply decided not to consider an appeal by gun-rights advocates. But it strongly suggests the majority of the court does not see the 2nd Amendment as protecting a right to own or carry powerful weapons in public.

    http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...207-story.html
    Last edited by Persephone; 07 Dec 15, 18:43.
    "Stand for the flag ~ Kneel for the fallen"

    "A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer." ~ Bruce Lee

  • #2
    No.

    First of all there was no ruling, they simply did not take the case. MANY reasons for them to do that, even if a Justice wanted to strike down the cities ordinance on weapons. One reason is no Appeals Courts in conflict, i.e. one appeals court rules one way, one another. Another reason is that the facts of the case don't allow a good ruling, either for or against.

    Don't read much into the refusal to accept a case here. Gay marriage was passed over many times in about 10-15 years for example.
    “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
    “To talk of many things:
    Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
    Of cabbages—and kings—
    And why the sea is boiling hot—
    And whether pigs have wings.”
    ― Lewis Carroll

    Comment


    • #3
      By not taking the appeal, the court is allowing Chicago to ban the sale or possession of semiautomatic guns that carry more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Can other cities technically use this as precedent to impose the ban?
      “Someone who doesn’t know is less stupid than someone who wrongly think he knows."

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Nikki View Post
        By not taking the appeal, the court is allowing Chicago to ban the sale or possession of semiautomatic guns that carry more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Can other cities technically use this as precedent to impose the ban?
        Chicago was not the city. However before the SC refused to accept it any city, where the state allows a city to do so as many restrict them, could have instituted such a ban. So the refusal changed nothing.

        A refusal to hear a case establishes no precedent.
        “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
        “To talk of many things:
        Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
        Of cabbages—and kings—
        And why the sea is boiling hot—
        And whether pigs have wings.”
        ― Lewis Carroll

        Comment


        • #5
          Keep in mind that the same court forced a state to allow concealed-carry licenses to be issued.

          Overall, this court has been very pro-gun.

          As noted, there is no precedent, and this is over a suburb's local ordinance.
          Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Nikki View Post
            By not taking the appeal, the court is allowing Chicago to ban the sale or possession of semiautomatic guns that carry more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Can other cities technically use this as precedent to impose the ban?
            I don't know about Illinois, but Texas is a preemptive State, in other words, a City cannot make a law more stringent or severe than the State, for example we can own AR 15s or high capacity magazines and no City, Municipality or County can make laws against them or restrict them, like I said, I am talking about my State, I really don't know about any of the other States except for New York, NYC seems to be able to do whatever suits them.
            Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

            Comment


            • #7
              I expect allot of people to vote with their feet if new gun restrictions are imposed...
              Credo quia absurdum.


              Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Bwaha View Post
                I expect allot of people to vote with their feet if new gun restrictions are imposed...
                Or if its affluent bog the city down with endless procession appeals. Lose in City Court, appeal to county. Lose appeal, start the round of State courts.
                Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                  No.

                  First of all there was no ruling, they simply did not take the case. MANY reasons for them to do that, even if a Justice wanted to strike down the cities ordinance on weapons. One reason is no Appeals Courts in conflict, i.e. one appeals court rules one way, one another. Another reason is that the facts of the case don't allow a good ruling, either for or against.

                  Don't read much into the refusal to accept a case here. Gay marriage was passed over many times in about 10-15 years for example.
                  Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                  Chicago was not the city. However before the SC refused to accept it any city, where the state allows a city to do so as many restrict them, could have instituted such a ban. So the refusal changed nothing.

                  A refusal to hear a case establishes no precedent.
                  Yep.

                  Plus, if they took the case, it would have almost certainly resulted in a 5-4 ruling, with serious constitutional ramifications, irrespective of how they ruled. This more or less leaves it up to the States and local governments to regulate the keeping and bearing of firearms, as intended by the framers.
                  Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Trung Si View Post
                    I don't know about Illinois, but Texas is a preemptive State, in other words, a City cannot make a law more stringent or severe than the State, for example we can own AR 15s or high capacity magazines and no City, Municipality or County can make laws against them or restrict them, like I said, I am talking about my State, I really don't know about any of the other States except for New York, NYC seems to be able to do whatever suits them.
                    One of many reasons I wouldn't want to live in any other State.
                    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Michigan is also a preemption state. I think that Ohio became one a few years ago and Pennsylvania might be but Philly seems to do what they want. I'm sure there are others.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Bwaha View Post
                        I expect allot of people to vote with their feet if new gun restrictions are imposed...
                        Yeah, if I were a violent criminal, a Gun-Free zone is the first place I'd head for. A city with severe restrictions is almost as good.
                        Terrorists probably feel the same way.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by johns624 View Post
                          Michigan is also a preemption state. I think that Ohio became one a few years ago and Pennsylvania might be but Philly seems to do what they want. I'm sure there are others.
                          PA is a preemptive state but Philly is a special case. The city dominated state politics for a time, mostly around Gov. "Fast Eddie" Rendell's era and still has a large and toxic influence on the rest of us. At least the state had the decency to make Philly a "special zone" that can basically do what it wants as far as guns are concerned and admit they won't enforce state law there rather than just look the other way and lie about it. It's one of the reasons I try to avoid the cess pool. The gun laws in the rest of the state are very good. There's not really much I'm not allowed to do, except hunt with semis for some reason .
                          "Artillery lends dignity to what might otherwise be a vulgar brawl." - Frederick the Great

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Persephone View Post
                            Is this the beginning of stricter gun regulations nationwide?
                            Considering how the whole debate centers on "me" (my gun, my rights, and **** everyone else's right to safety) and how Wayne Lapierre and the NRA have so many legislators dancing to their tune I do not see it happening. The intellectual cowardice that is routinely displayed by our elected officials every time that they perform a kowtow to the gun rights crowd is absolutely eye popping! The fact is that we have more mass shootings in the USA than any other industrialized country because we have more guns per citizen than any other industrialized country.

                            It's easier to get a license to carry a firearm in the USA than it is to get a driver's license; what is wrong with that picture? I find it absolutely ironic that the San Bernardino shooters purchased their weapons, including assault rifles, legally. Enjoy your guns ladies and gentlemen, but do not look to me to be surprised or to express pity if I read in the news that you or one of your loved ones ended up on the wrong end of your personal firearm like that proponent of guns for self-defense that was killed in his own house, with one of his own guns, surrounded by fifty of his personal firearms. I guess that the whole guns for self-defense thing did not work all that well for him.
                            Give me a fast ship and the wind at my back for I intend to sail in harms way! (John Paul Jones)

                            Initiated Chief Petty Officer
                            Hard core! Old School! Deal with it!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Bass_Man86 View Post
                              Considering how the whole debate centers on "me"
                              There really isn't a debate, it is 100% about an individual's right.



                              Originally posted by Bass_Man86 View Post
                              (my gun, my rights, and **** everyone else's right to safety) and how Wayne Lapierre and the NRA have so many legislators dancing to their tune I do not see it happening.
                              The NRA is saying enforce the current gun laws, it makes no sense that the anti gun lobby lead by Bloomberg wants to take away law abiding citizens right of self defense.


                              Originally posted by Bass_Man86 View Post
                              The intellectual cowardice
                              The intellectual cowardice is found in the anti gun people. If they really were concerned about safety they would be going after the problem.

                              The problem obviously isn't the law abiding citizen's gun ownership.

                              The problem is criminals breaking the law. The places with the strictest gun laws, have the most gun crimes......try wrapping your head around that for a moment.

                              Originally posted by Bass_Man86 View Post
                              It's easier to get a license to carry a firearm in the USA than it is to get a driver's license; what is wrong with that picture?
                              There is nothing wrong with your picture, self defense is a right, driving is a privilege.

                              Originally posted by Bass_Man86 View Post
                              I find it absolutely ironic that the San Bernardino shooters purchased their weapons, including assault rifles, legally.
                              First thing...they didn't have assault rifles...which is another example of the anti gun lobby...they are incapable of identifying guns. I recommend that you educate yourself on firearms, this is a good article to begin with:

                              http://thefederalist.com/2015/02/24/...nd-about-guns/

                              Second, universal background checks are the law in many states....California is one of those. As more information is released on these two murderers it is becoming obvious that the wife should never have been allowed in the states and that the husband was radicalized before he purchased the pistols. It is also becoming obvious that the neighbors noticed threat indicators but were afraid of being labeled so they didn't report it. Now, about the rifles:

                              The Federal Bureau of Investigation executed a search warrant on Saturday at the Riverside, Calif., home of the man who allegedly purchased the two illegally modified rifles used by the shooters in the rampage in San Bernardino this week, law-enforcement officials said.

                              http://www.wsj.com/articles/suspecte...ore-1449343406

                              Note the word "illegally" also note that this is looking like a straw purchase....another illegal action.
                              "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X