The Supreme Court effectively let stand the decision by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines that Highland Park and about 20 other IL cities hurriedly passed two years ago.
Advertisement
7 not to hear the appeal of Highland Park pediatrician Arie Friedman and the Illinois State Rifle Association challenging the city’s constitutionality of the ban that could lead to it being overturned, according to a Supreme Court spokesperson.
Gun owners living in Highland Park, Illinois, wanted a 2013 ban on semi-automatic assault weapons and large capacity magazines lifted. We have a good foundation for successful Second Amendment advocacy.
Six other states have some form of an assault-style weapons ban: Maryland, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts and NY.
What is clear following the Supreme Court decision is that unlike the victims of its loopholes, California’s assault weapon ban, is still alive.
The U.S. Supreme Court Monday handed a legal victory to advocates of banning firearms commonly known as assault weapons. Large-capacity magazines, the ordinance said, are those that can accept more than 10 rounds. But the court has not yet found a case it thinks requires its intervention.
The Supreme Court in 2008 established a constitutional right to have a gun.
In a rare Oval Office address on Sunday, President Obama called for a ban on gun sales to suspected terrorists No Fly List, a scaled-down request that follows more ambitious but failed efforts to pass gun control legislation following Sandy Hook.
As sure as shooting, Highland Park’s ordinance drew a court challenge. Two of the court’s conservatives members, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, said the court should have taken the case. The fact that it took so long suggests either that Justices Thomas and Scalia were trying to persuade some of their colleagues to hear the case, and failed, or that neither side of the closely divided court was sure it had to votes to prevail.
“The justices’ decision not to reconsider the lower court ruling continues a pattern”.
For the past seven years, it has been a settled constitutional issue that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to have a gun for use in self-defense. The justices may have been unwilling to declare assault weapons, which are often used in mass shootings, constitutionally protected.
The weapons ban “is highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semi-automatic firearms used for lawful purposes” wrote Justice Thomas.
Some predicted that the court would have to consider challenges to a wide range of gun ownership laws and regulations, but justices have not agreed to review any restrictions since their 2010 decision.
The decision leaves in place a lower court ruling that allows local governments some leeway in regulating the high-powered weapons.
Advertisement
“We wanted to give the message that our community was going to reflect the values we support”, Rotering said.
