And that’s exactly what the Supreme Court suggested on Monday, when it declined to hear an appeal of a suit against a law in Highland Park, Illinois, that banned assault weapons and high-capacity magazines in the town.
Advertisement
“Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons”, he argued.
Two years later, in the case McDonald v. City of Chicago, the court held that the earlier ruling applied to the states.
The court’s decision, coming on the heels of the mass shooting in San Bernadino, Calif.in which assault-style weapons were used, means New Jersey’s law remains firmly in place, said Prof.
It was mere coincidence that, just days after that incident, the Justices would again refuse to get involved.
Justice Thomas, writing for himself and Justice Scalia in dissent, said that there is nothing unusual about the guns banned by the Highland Park ordinance; calling them assault weapons, he said, is nothing more than “anti-gun propaganda”. The ordinance in the affluent suburb came at a time when the state of IL was preparing to pass a law that allowed legal gun owners to carry concealed firearms-but it was allowed through a condition that allowed cities to maintain their home rule. Those bans are also being challenged. His office did not immediately return a request from DailyMail.com for comment on the Supreme Court’s decision. We have a good foundation for successful Second Amendment advocacy. As is their custom, the justices gave no reason for turning down the appeal in the case, Friedman vs. City of Highland Park, No. 15-133.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly turned away challenges to gun restrictions and has not taken up a major case since 2010.
In this most recent case, lawyers for Illinois State Rifle Association said that in the seven years since the last big gun ruling, “the lower courts have assiduously worked to sap it of any real meaning”.
Indianapolis gun shop owner Brian Ludlow believes weapons aren’t problem.
Though the rifles allegedly used by Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik were purchased legally in California, authorities said, they were modified to fire in automatic mode. A ban on assault weapons and large‐capacity magazines might not prevent shootings in Highland Park (where they are already rare), but it may reduce the carnage if a mass shooting occurs. What accounts for the court’s reluctance to review that case, and others?
Thomas wrote, “The Court’s refusal to review a decision that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents stands in marked contrast to the Court’s willingness to summarily reverse courts that disregard our other constitutional decisions”. Data needs to take its proper place in this debate. Today’s announcement that the challengers’ petition would not be granted reflects that Thomas and Scalia could not persuade fellow conservatives who made up the majority in Heller to take the case.
Yes, some gun control measures can be constitutional.
Advertisement
However, the nation’s highest court has not decided whether a municipality can ban certain types of weapons, he said.
