The decision that the Supreme Court decided not to review came from a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.
Advertisement
In June 2013, the City Council in Highland Park, Ill., banned possession of semiautomatic pistols and rifles, including versions of the AK-47, AR-15 and Uzi, which it described as “a narrow category of unusually unsafe weapons that have been used in a series of deadly mass shooting events”.
Two conservative justices said that they would have heard the case, and had they done so, struck down the ban. On Monday the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
The point is that there is a consensus: that there is an individual right to own a firearm that’s protected by the Second Amendment.
But one of the plaintiffs in the case said his organization would continue challenging such bans. Writing for the majority, Judge Frank H. wrote that 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”.
The Highland Park ordinance had its genesis in Illinois’ hide carry legislation passed in 2013, which gave home rule communities like Highland Park 10 days to ban assault weapons after then Gov. Patrick Quinn signed the new law or lose those rights, according to Rotering.
In October, a federal appeals court in NY basically upheld bans on semi-automatic weapons in CT and NY that are similar to Highland Park’s ordinance. We have a good foundation for successful Second Amendment advocacy. 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. Questioning whether semi-automatic rifles fit that definition, Thomas argued in his dissent that semi-automatic rifles are popular, and that the majority of owners use them for lawful purposes.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissented, saying that lower courts have been ignoring Supreme Court precedents on Second Amendment rights.
The Highland Park ordinance specifically bans only “unusual and risky firearms”. And the Supreme Court was right to turn away the case.
Gun-rights advocates have repeatedly tried and failed in recent years to get the high court to expand protections under the Second Amendment.
Thomas was also dismissive of the 7th Circuit’s claim that the “assault weapons” ban “may increase the public’s sense of safety”, which that court deemed “a substantial benefit” of the city’s actions. In his Oval Office address last night, President Obama called for a new federal ban on such weaponry.
“Not that they’re going to decide based on who wins the election, but certainly it seems that guns might be up for debate in this election cycle”, she said.
But assault weapons with large‐capacity magazines can fire more shots, faster, and thus can be more risky in aggregate.
Advertisement
Friedman filed an appeal with the high court in July, which won the backing of the National Rifle Association and the state attorneys from 23 mostly Republican-led states.
