The US Supreme Court has refused to take up a case brought by gun owners challenging an IL city’s ban on so-called assault weapons.
Advertisement
“Because the Second Amendment confers rights upon individual citizens – not state governments – it was doubly wrong for the (federal appeals court) to delegate to States and localities the power to decide which firearms people may possess”, the dissent by Thomas and Scalia states.
Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, said the Chicago appeals court ruling “flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents”.
Even though lower courts have mainly upheld gun restrictions, the Highland Park case arises out of a decision by the federal appeals court in Chicago that struck down the only statewide ban on carrying concealed weapons, in IL.
The case had been under consideration at the high court for two months, but the delay in dealing with it now appears mainly due to waiting for Thomas to finish his opinion.
Eight states – California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey and NY – have adopted laws similar to the Highland Park ordinance, as have several other cities in the Chicago area.
Seven states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws banning assault weapons.
FILE – The Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that Americans have a constitutional right to keep guns in their homes for self-defense. First, they’re often used in mass shootings, favored by murderers wanting to kill large numbers of people for their quick firing, relative accuracy (compared to handguns), and ability to take high-capacity magazines.
“The issue was whether the Second Amendment has any exceptions to it”, Elrod said. Gun retailers are reporting surging sales, with customers saying they want to keep handguns and rifles at hand for self-defense in the event of another attack.
In April, the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the challenge to Highland Park’s ordinance.
The Illinois State Rifle Association did not return WGN News’s calls or requests for comment. Judge Frank Easterbrook said the courts should defer to city and state officials who seek to protect the public’s safety.
“Why else are they the weapons of choice in mass shootings?” he wrote. That means things like universal background checks and restricting domestic abusers from getting guns, which are both popular and probably comfortably within the Supreme Court’s understanding of the Second Amendment.
“The Supreme Court hears less than 1 percent of the cases submitted every year, so it’s never a surprise to learn a petition for cert has been denied”, said NRA spokesman Lars Dalseide.
“Assault weapons with large-capacity magazines can fire more shots, faster and thus can be more risky in the aggregate”, he said.
Advertisement
Lyle Denniston, the National Constitution Center’s constitutional literacy adviser, analyzes the Supreme Court’s refusal to take a case about banning assault weapons. It also may be true that some uncertainty has developed among one or more of the Justices in that five-member majority, so there is no dependable way to predict how a new decision would come out.
