SCOTUS ignores malfeasance of lower courts, rejects cases on AWB & open carry

[unclejumbo]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1DR1SE

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court, which has avoided major gun cases for seven years, on Monday declined to hear a challenge backed by the National Rifle Association to Maryland’s 2013 state ban on assault weapons enacted after a Connecticut school massacre.

The court turned away an appeal by several Maryland residents, firearms dealers and the state NRA association, who argued that the ban violated their right to keep and bear arms under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment.

The justices sidestepped the roiling national debate over the availability of military-style guns to the public.

The case focused on weapons that have become a recurring feature in U.S. mass shootings including the Nov. 5 attack at a Texas church that killed 26 people, the Oct. 1 attack at a Las Vegas concert that killed 58 people, and the 2012 massacre of 20 schoolchildren and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, which prompted Maryland’s law.

The Supreme Court on Monday also declined to hear a second gun-related case in which a Florida man convicted of openly carrying a firearm on the street sought to challenge that state’s ban on such activity.

Defendant Dale Lee Norman, who had a permit to carry a concealed weapon, was convicted of openly carrying a handgun in 2012 near his home in Fort Pierce, Florida. In March of this year, the Florida Supreme Court rejected Norman’s challenge to the so-called open-carry ban, saying it did not violate his right to bear arms.

[abner13]

When states pass laws we don't like , we seek federal intervention.
When the Federal Gov't passes laws we don't like , we claim state sovereignty.

[unclejumbo]

When states pass laws we don't like , we seek federal intervention.
When the Federal Gov't passes laws we don't like , we claim state sovereignty.

Except states shouldn't have sovereignty to violate rights.

[knight0334]

Except states shouldn't have sovereignty to violate rights.

Correct.

The 2A rights are reserved to the People. And with incorporation with the 14A, that empowers the Federal government to keep States from violating our 2A rights.


We shouldn't have had to "incorporate" the 2A because it specifically said the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. For a colony, territory, possession to become a state they would have to ratify the US Constitution. And any amendments to the Constitution are effectively part of the Constitution, and back-date.

When NY and MD became states, they ratified the Constitution. When the 2A was ratified later, NY and MD were bound to honor it.

When CA became a state, it ratified the Constitution, which already included the 2A, it had effectively ratified the 2A with it.

Since the People and Federal government had no means to force things down the throats of the States, the 14A was created as a means to empower the US Government to force states to honor our rights.

As things stand right now, we technically can get US Congress to enact law that would force the States to honor the 2A. ....especially since SCOTUS wont do it.

[eagleclaw]

With a razor thin margin of justices likely to decide in our favor , with Kennedy and Roberts providing a swing vote at times, and the recent mass shooting massacres with fatalities rising up to 50+, it was no guarantee that they would decide these cases the way we want them too.

[unclejumbo]

With a razor thin margin of justices likely to decide in our favor , with Kennedy and Roberts providing a swing vote at times, and the recent mass shooting massacres with fatalities rising up to 50+, it was no guarantee that they would decide these cases the way we want them too.

I agree with you, it may be a blessing until/unless Trump gets to put one or two more on the court. It may work out that once the court is conservative heavy, they'll take on the 2A cases and crush the infringements.

[prof7654]

Dear Gun Enthusiasts,

I'm not a lawyer, but I'd appreciate those with more legal acumen and background to weigh in on the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court today not to consider the appeals court's affirmation of the state of Maryland's ban on so-called "assault rifles" (AR 15s). From what I gather, the U.S. Supreme Court's Heller decision affirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess weapons for the purposes of self-defense in the home, among other uses. Today, however, in refusing to hear the case involving Maryland’s ban on “assault rifles,” the U.S. Supreme Court leaves open the possibility of more states banning these types of guns. More alarming, however, is the language used by the appeals court in its decision, which maintains that “weapons of war” are not covered by Second Amendment protections. The alarming nature of this language is that “weapons of war” is not only a notoriously ambiguous phrase, but if historical precedent serves as any reliable guide, then not only semi-automatic rifles, but also bolt action rifles, semi-automatic pistols, and shotguns could potentially be considered weapons of war, as they have all, at some point in our recent national history, have been used by our military forces. Like I said, I’m no lawyer, but this development seems a bit ominous in my opinion, and I’d appreciate any clarity someone with a legal background can offer.

Many thanks!

[knight0334]

The Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case doesn't exactly mean that it affirm the lower court's ruling. ...it just means it that they either don't want to hear it, or there isn't enough differing lower court rulings that need to be settled.

Your anti-gun states will still create their anti-gun laws. While there is the possibility that other states may join in, in reality the states that don't already have assault weapon bans probably wont make the laws later. Such type laws are already popular in leftist states, and the states without such tend to lean away from any new anti-gun laws.

Moral of the story - if you like guns, don't live in CT, MA, RI, NY, NJ, MD, IL, CA, HI, or DC. And if you live in one of the pro-gun states - keep the anti-gun laws in-check.

[prof7654]

Thanks for the reply! That was helpful.

[JenniferG]

States are free to ignore the US Constitution including the 2nd and 14th amendments