• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gun control ruled constitutional in WA State

Bucky

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2015
Messages
25,236
Reaction score
5,103
Location
Washington
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Judge Ronald Leighton, a President George W. Bush-appointed federal judge, granted Ferguson’s motion for summary judgment ruling that I-1639 does not violate the Constitution. The law implemented the same enhanced background checks, waiting periods, and purchasing requirements for semiautomatic assault rifle purchases that have long been in place for handgun purchases.

Judge Leighton decided a trial was unnecessary to resolve the case. In order to rule on summary judgment, there must be no genuine dispute over any material fact, and the judge views the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment. In other words, the judge viewed the facts in a light most favorable to the NRA and the other plaintiffs in the case, and still upheld the initiative.

“An overwhelming majority of Washington voters approved Initiative 1639,” Ferguson said. “The NRA continues to challenge voter-approved, common sense gun reforms – and they continue to lose. I will not allow the NRA to undermine the will of the voters. If they choose to appeal, we will beat them again.”

AG Ferguson: Court rules against NRA; voter-approved Initiative 1639 is constitutional | Washington State

Bars the sales of semi-autos to people under 21? Check
10-day waiting period for the sales of semi-autos? Check
Requires those who want to buy them to go through a mandatory firearms training course? Check
Charging gun owners if someone not allowed to have a gun get a hold of their firearms because it wasn't safely stored? Check

This is exactly what I am talking about. These are common-sense laws that are not in violation of the Consitution. The NRA and 2nd Amendment Foundation are wrong. They have been exposed as not supporting the Consitution but using it towards their own twisted and perverted ideology.

Hopefully these kind of laws can expand towards more states!
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
91,640
Reaction score
39,394
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
AG Ferguson: Court rules against NRA; voter-approved Initiative 1639 is constitutional | Washington State

Bars the sales of semi-autos to people under 21? Check
10-day waiting period for the sales of semi-autos? Check
Requires those who want to buy them to go through a mandatory firearms training course? Check
Charging gun owners if someone not allowed to have a gun get a hold of their firearms because it wasn't safely stored? Check

This is exactly what I am talking about. These are common-sense laws that are not in violation of the Consitution. The NRA and 2nd Amendment Foundation are wrong. They have been exposed as not supporting the Consitution but using it towards their own twisted and perverted ideology.

Hopefully these kind of laws can expand towards more states!

I'm not surprised that the average voters in WA don't understand what "...shall not be infringed" means. After all, in some places the average voter is a blithering idiot. But I am surprised that the judge, who would normally be considered a learned man, would fail to understand that phrase.

I hope this ruling gets appealed to a higher court.
 

Bucky

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2015
Messages
25,236
Reaction score
5,103
Location
Washington
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm not surprised that the average voters in WA don't understand what "...shall not be infringed" means. After all, in some places the average voter is a blithering idiot. But I am surprised that the judge, who would normally be considered a learned man, would fail to understand that phrase.

I hope this ruling gets appealed to a higher court.

As the AG of WA said: “the NRA continues to challenge voter-approved, common-sense gun reforms – and they continue to lose. I will not allow the NRA to undermine the will of the voters. If they choose to appeal, we will beat them again.”

Defending the initiative, Ferguson filed several declarations in support for the state’s motion for summary judgment.

The declarations include one from Paul Kramer, whose 19-year-old son Will was critically injured in a shooting in Mukilteo. The shooter, 19-year-old Allen Ivanov, legally purchased AR-15 style rifle just a few days before the shooting took place. Using an entire 30-round magazine, the shooter killed three people and injured Will.

In his declaration, Kramer wrote: “Words cannot express what it means for a family to go through these devastating events. Three families lost their loved ones. We were lucky and Will lived. While his physical wounds eventually healed, the grief and trauma never will be gone. I served as the citizen sponsor of Initiative 1639, which would have prohibited Ivanov from legally purchasing the semiautomatic assault rifle he used in his shooting spree, in order to help prevent other families from having to live the same nightmare as ours. ...No family should have to go through the same type of tragedy that mine has.”

In another declaration, Dr. Frederick Rivara, a professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at the University of Washington, highlighted the link between semiautomatic assault rifles and mass shootings.

Dr. Rivara wrote: “The available data on semiautomatic assault rifles indicates they have played an important and disproportionate role in mass shootings in the United States and appear to be the weapon of choice when an individual wants to shoot and kill as many people as possible in a short period of time. The available data also indicate that restrictions on purchase or possession of these rifles can result in a reduction of mass shooting deaths, as shown both in the US and in Australia, and thus have important positive impact of health and public health.”

AG Ferguson: Court rules against NRA; voter-approved Initiative 1639 is constitutional | Washington State

To the NRA: "Check"
 

Luther

Another California Refugee
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
20,649
Reaction score
2,465
Location
Idaho
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
AG Ferguson: Court rules against NRA; voter-approved Initiative 1639 is constitutional | Washington State

Bars the sales of semi-autos to people under 21? Check
10-day waiting period for the sales of semi-autos? Check
Requires those who want to buy them to go through a mandatory firearms training course? Check
Charging gun owners if someone not allowed to have a gun get a hold of their firearms because it wasn't safely stored? Check

This is exactly what I am talking about. These are common-sense laws that are not in violation of the Consitution. The NRA and 2nd Amendment Foundation are wrong. They have been exposed as not supporting the Consitution but using it towards their own twisted and perverted ideology.

Hopefully these kind of laws can expand towards more states!


Bars the sales of semi-autos to people under 21? Check

Private sales?

10-day waiting period for the sales of semi-autos? Check


Private sales?


Requires those who want to buy them to go through a mandatory firearms training course? Check

Private sales?
 

Noodlegawd

The RWNJ/Commie Atheist Formerly Known as Tlrmln
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 17, 2019
Messages
17,203
Reaction score
6,866
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
AG Ferguson: Court rules against NRA; voter-approved Initiative 1639 is constitutional | Washington State

Bars the sales of semi-autos to people under 21? Check
10-day waiting period for the sales of semi-autos? Check
Requires those who want to buy them to go through a mandatory firearms training course? Check
Charging gun owners if someone not allowed to have a gun get a hold of their firearms because it wasn't safely stored? Check

This is exactly what I am talking about. These are common-sense laws that are not in violation of the Consitution. The NRA and 2nd Amendment Foundation are wrong. They have been exposed as not supporting the Consitution but using it towards their own twisted and perverted ideology.

Hopefully these kind of laws can expand towards more states!

I wonder if they argued that the ballot did not sufficiently put voters on notice of what they were voting for. I would have. If I'm not mistaken and I recall correctly, even the title of this one was highly misleading.

After moving recently and voting in a state that used ballot initiatives, I was shocked at how uninformative the ballot statements are. It's kind of ridiculous to ask people vote for or against a piece of legislation 99% of them haven't even read.
 

Bucky

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2015
Messages
25,236
Reaction score
5,103
Location
Washington
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Washington has been Californicated.

The sad thing is WA state had 12 sheriffs state they would refuse to enforce the law.

Talk about a blatant misuse of power. You have sheriffs publically saying they will not follow the legislative or judicial branch.

Sheriffs refusing to enforce the law? Now that is outrageous.
 

Chillfolks

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2016
Messages
18,386
Reaction score
9,919
Location
VA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I doubt this is the end of it and anticipate some sort of appeal or challenge in the near future
 

Bucky

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2015
Messages
25,236
Reaction score
5,103
Location
Washington
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I doubt this is the end of it and anticipate some sort of appeal or challenge in the near future

There is nothing to appeal. Common sense gun regulation is not unconstitutional, it saves lives.
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
20,833
Reaction score
14,796
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
I wonder if they argued that the ballot did not sufficiently put voters on notice of what they were voting for.
You probably shouldn't wonder. While support for gun ownership is very high, so is support for these types of gun control laws.

Text of the initiative is here:
https://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/finaltext_1531.pdf

Therefore, to increase public safety for all Washingtonians, in
particular our children, this measure would, among other things:
Create an enhanced background check system applicable to
semiautomatic assault rifles similar to what is required for
handguns, require that individuals complete a firearm safety
training course and be at least twenty-one years of age to purchase
or possess such weapons, enact a waiting period for the purchase of
such weapons, and establish standards for the responsible storage of
all firearms.



After moving recently and voting in a state that used ballot initiatives, I was shocked at how uninformative the ballot statements are. It's kind of ridiculous to ask people vote for or against a piece of legislation 99% of them haven't even read.
Not all states are the same, and not all ballot initiatives are the same. Plus, these types of ballot initiatives usually have groups advocating yes or no.

I don't see how this would be so jumbled as to be wildly misinterpreted by the public. There isn't a lot of ambiguity in "require a firearm safety class" or "establish storage standards."
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
20,833
Reaction score
14,796
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
The sad thing is WA state had 12 sheriffs state they would refuse to enforce the law.

Talk about a blatant misuse of power. You have sheriffs publically saying they will not follow the legislative or judicial branch.

Sheriffs refusing to enforce the law? Now that is outrageous.
Yeah, that's just the tip of the iceberg.

There is a movement of around 400 sheriffs who, I kid you not, believe that they are the highest executive authority, that federal and state authorities are below that of the county level, and that they can unilaterally decide which laws are or are not constitutional.
Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association - Wikipedia
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
20,833
Reaction score
14,796
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
I doubt this is the end of it and anticipate some sort of appeal or challenge in the near future
They can appeal, but the SCOTUS typically *cough* shoots down objections to these types of gun laws.

If a gun control law genuinely makes it impossible to bear a weapon -- as was largely the case in Heller -- the SCOTUS will declare it unconstitutional. However, even Scalia openly declared in Heller that the vast majority of existing gun control legislation was valid. The SCOTUS even refused to hear any challenges to gun control laws in its next term.

So yeah, I most certainly would not bet on any further appeals meeting any success.
 

Rucker61

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
27,452
Reaction score
17,501
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
They can appeal, but the SCOTUS typically *cough* shoots down objections to these types of gun laws.

If a gun control law genuinely makes it impossible to bear a weapon -- as was largely the case in Heller -- the SCOTUS will declare it unconstitutional. However, even Scalia openly declared in Heller that the vast majority of existing gun control legislation was valid.

Not sure where you got "vast majority of existing gun control legislation" from.

Scalia in Heller, and later Alito in McDonald, were specific in what infringements might be considered as Constitutional:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."
DC v Heller.
"We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory
measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___
(slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here."
Chicago v McDonald.

Nothing other than what is listed here should be considered potentially Constitutional. Everything new in Washington State still needs to be reviewed for Constitutionality.
The SCOTUS even refused to hear any challenges to gun control laws in its next term.

Other than Chicago v McDonald and Caetano v Massachusetts, you mean?

So yeah, I most certainly would not bet on any further appeals meeting any success.

Well, SCOTUS did decide to look at New York Rifle and Pistol Assn v NYC until NYC decided that the law they defended all the way to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals as Constitutional wasn't Constitutional after all.

Neither side on SCOTUS really trusts Roberts; if they did, we would see more SCOTUS review.
 

Artymoon

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2019
Messages
4,108
Reaction score
2,446
Location
U.S.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
AG Ferguson: Court rules against NRA; voter-approved Initiative 1639 is constitutional | Washington State

Bars the sales of semi-autos to people under 21? Check
10-day waiting period for the sales of semi-autos? Check
Requires those who want to buy them to go through a mandatory firearms training course? Check
Charging gun owners if someone not allowed to have a gun get a hold of their firearms because it wasn't safely stored? Check

This is exactly what I am talking about. These are common-sense laws that are not in violation of the Consitution. The NRA and 2nd Amendment Foundation are wrong. They have been exposed as not supporting the Consitution but using it towards their own twisted and perverted ideology.

Hopefully these kind of laws can expand towards more states!

Are under 21's who are LEO's and in Military subject to this ruling?
 

aociswundumho

Capitalist Pig
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 6, 2019
Messages
14,422
Reaction score
6,549
Location
Bridgeport, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Bars the sales of semi-autos to people under 21? Check

So an adult can vote and serve in the military, but he can't buy a gun?

10-day waiting period for the sales of semi-autos? Check

Why should anyone have to wait 10 days? How is it "common sense" to prevent a woman, who was just threatened by her ex-husband, from buying a firearm immediately in order to protect herself?

Requires those who want to buy them to go through a mandatory firearms training course? Check

What about low income people who can't afford it?

Charging gun owners if someone not allowed to have a gun get a hold of their firearms because it wasn't safely stored? Check

In other words, charging innocent people for the crimes committed by other people.

This is exactly what I am talking about. These are common-sense laws that are not in violation of the Consitution.

No they're not. They're all stupid and they're all infringements.
 

Noodlegawd

The RWNJ/Commie Atheist Formerly Known as Tlrmln
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 17, 2019
Messages
17,203
Reaction score
6,866
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
You probably shouldn't wonder. While support for gun ownership is very high, so is support for these types of gun control laws.

Text of the initiative is here:
https://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/finaltext_1531.pdf

Therefore, to increase public safety for all Washingtonians, in
particular our children, this measure would, among other things:
Create an enhanced background check system applicable to
semiautomatic assault rifles similar to what is required for
handguns, require that individuals complete a firearm safety
training course and be at least twenty-one years of age to purchase
or possess such weapons, enact a waiting period for the purchase of
such weapons, and establish standards for the responsible storage of
all firearms.




Not all states are the same, and not all ballot initiatives are the same. Plus, these types of ballot initiatives usually have groups advocating yes or no.

I don't see how this would be so jumbled as to be wildly misinterpreted by the public. There isn't a lot of ambiguity in "require a firearm safety class" or "establish storage standards."

This is a perfect example of what I was talking about. What people see on the ballot is a short blurb like what you presented in blue. The actual initiative is a 30 page bowl of word spaghetti that the average voter couldn't possibly be expected to sort out even if they tried. So they most likely almost all just focus on misleading buzz words like "semiautomatic ASSAULT rifle" in the blurb they are provided, not knowing that this term is not what they have long been trained to think it means, but rather is defined in a way that literally encompasses all semiautomatic rifles. In other words, including the word "assault" in the term was unnecessary and blatantly misleading.

"Semiautomatic assault rifle" means any rifle which utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and which requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge."

The consequences here are not that drastic, but I'm willing to place money on the next gun control ballot initiative in WA being a ban all "semiautomatic assault rifles," promoted with a heart wrenching appeal about the gun used in Sandy Hook, and how evil Republicans repealed the 1994 Federal ban on semiautomatic "assault weapons."

This is why we have legislatures.
 
Last edited:

Batcat

Active member
Joined
Dec 5, 2016
Messages
351
Reaction score
93
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
AG Ferguson: Court rules against NRA; voter-approved Initiative 1639 is constitutional | Washington State

Bars the sales of semi-autos to people under 21? Check
10-day waiting period for the sales of semi-autos? Check
Requires those who want to buy them to go through a mandatory firearms training course? Check
Charging gun owners if someone not allowed to have a gun get a hold of their firearms because it wasn't safely stored? Check

This is exactly what I am talking about. These are common-sense laws that are not in violation of the Consitution. The NRA and 2nd Amendment Foundation are wrong. They have been exposed as not supporting the Consitution but using it towards their own twisted and perverted ideology.

Hopefully these kind of laws can expand towards more states!

So a single female under the age of 21 can’t buy a semi-automatic firearm for self defense. I suppose she could get a revolver or a pump shotgun.

A 10 day waiting period for a semi-auto seems a bit much. Of course once again a person can buy a revolver or a shotgun. With a speed loader and a little practice you can reload a revolver quickly. Why impose a 10 day waiting period if the person can prove he owns other similar firearms?

I actually like the idea of requiring a safety course for anyone buying a firearm. In this nation that course should be taught in high school along with first aid training. Imagine the lives that could be saved.

A professional can easily defeat many high priced gun safes made today although proper storage might keep kids safe.
 

Noodlegawd

The RWNJ/Commie Atheist Formerly Known as Tlrmln
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 17, 2019
Messages
17,203
Reaction score
6,866
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
The sad thing is WA state had 12 sheriffs state they would refuse to enforce the law.

Talk about a blatant misuse of power. You have sheriffs publically saying they will not follow the legislative or judicial branch.

Sheriffs refusing to enforce the law? Now that is outrageous.

Law enforcement officials have to make decisions all the time about how to allocate their resources. For instance, they COULD be ticketing literally everybody who goes even 1 mph over the speed limit (and probably save a lot more lives than they ever would by enforcing this stupid law), but obviously they can't.
 

Bucky

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2015
Messages
25,236
Reaction score
5,103
Location
Washington
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I actually like the idea of requiring a safety course for anyone buying a firearm. In this nation that course should be taught in high school along with first aid training. Imagine the lives that could be saved.

A professional can easily defeat many high priced gun safes made today although proper storage might keep kids safe.

Be careful. That kind of talk can have you branded a traitor by the gun community.
 

Bucky

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2015
Messages
25,236
Reaction score
5,103
Location
Washington
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So an adult can vote and serve in the military, but he can't buy a gun?

Yes, an adult also cannot drink until the age of 21.

Why should anyone have to wait 10 days? How is t "common sense" to prevent a woman, who was just threatened by her ex-husband, from buying a firearm immediately in order to protect herself?

To determine if the adult is mentally competent and responsible enough to be a gun owner? Duh. What are some things that take more than a few days to complete - buying a house, getting a driver's license, etc.

What about low income people who can't afford it?

LOL!. Owning a gun isn't a right, it is a privilege. I'll stand by that statement the rest of my life.
 

Noodlegawd

The RWNJ/Commie Atheist Formerly Known as Tlrmln
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 17, 2019
Messages
17,203
Reaction score
6,866
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Yes, an adult also cannot drink until the age of 21.

Also a stupid law, but not even remotely related to a constitutional right.

LOL!. Owning a gun isn't a right, it is a privilege. I'll stand by that statement the rest of my life.

Then you'll be wrong for the rest of your life.
 

Bucky

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2015
Messages
25,236
Reaction score
5,103
Location
Washington
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Also a stupid law, but not even remotely related to a constitutional right.

Then you'll be wrong for the rest of your life.

You seem hostile towards a lot of rules and laws in this country.
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
20,833
Reaction score
14,796
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Not sure where you got "vast majority of existing gun control legislation" from.
From what is actually happening in US courts. Dozens of laws were challenged after Heller, almost none were overturned. You have no excuse not to know this.


Scalia in Heller, and later Alito in McDonald, were specific in what infringements might be considered as Constitutional....
No, they weren't. Scalia did not make an exhaustive list of which gun control regulations are constitutional. That's why he used phrases like "for example" and "such as" and "long-standing provisions."

Sorry not sorry, but I am not a gullible gun-rights extremist who grasps at straws to push an agenda.


Other than Chicago v McDonald and Caetano v Massachusetts, you mean?
Yes. There have been dozens of cases that the SCOTUS has declined to review. They refused to hear 10 cases just in 2020. The SCOTUS refused to hear challenges to gun laws for 9 years until the NYRPA case. As a result, almost no gun regulations were overturned after Heller.

As to NYRPA, the NY law was too strict -- to the point where a NYC gun owner couldn't transport a gun to a domicile or shooting range outside the city's borders. (As in, I'm fully in favor of firearm laws, and even I can see how that's too restrictive.) NYC repealed that specific out-of-city portion, which rendered the case moot. Thus, NYC's premises licenses still heavily restrict transport, but the law now allows the owner to transport their permitted firearm(s) to a home or shooting range outside NYC. If the fundamental regulation of a premise license was at issue, then the case would have been heard.

Nothing in the WA laws is anywhere near as restrictive. Taking a required firearm class doesn't prevent you from owning, transporting or using a firearm. Neither do secure storage requirements. Waiting periods are one of those "long-standing provisions." Numerous states have age restrictions on firearms, that aren't getting overturned.


Neither side on SCOTUS really trusts Roberts; if they did, we would see more SCOTUS review.
lol, no, try again. People spent a decade challenging gun regulations in the courts, even when the court only had 4 firm conservative votes.

I'd also say it is pretty desperate, and a teeny bit biased, to say that the only way you can get the rulings you want is to stack the court with rabid conservatives.
 

Batcat

Active member
Joined
Dec 5, 2016
Messages
351
Reaction score
93
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Be careful. That kind of talk can have you branded a traitor by the gun community.

I have went shooting with a number of people who owned a gun for self defense for years but were unfamiliar with firearms and firearm safety.

You ask them when they show you their weapon, “Is it loaded.”

They sometimes reply, “I don’t know. It might be.”

I have had that happen more than once.

One time I borrowed a single action revolver from my brother in law at the time. When I returned it he asked me if it was unloaded. After I told him it was he pointed the revolver at me and pulled the trigger seven times. Now this idiot should have known better. He had been a door gunner on a helicopter in Vietnam.
 

Rucker61

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
27,452
Reaction score
17,501
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
From what is actually happening in US courts. Dozens of laws were challenged after Heller, almost none were overturned. You have no excuse not to know this.

You still haven't support "vast majority". Two cases made it to SCOTUS after Heller: Chicago v McDonald and Caetano v Massachusetts. In both cases SCOTUS found against the law.
No, they weren't. Scalia did not make an exhaustive list of which gun control regulations are constitutional. That's why he used phrases like "for example" and "such as" and "long-standing provisions."

Sorry not sorry, but I am not a gullible gun-rights extremist who grasps at straws to push an agenda
There was no exhaustive list, which is why any gun control law other than those mentioned needs to be reviewed on its own merits. For an example of how the current SCOTUS would review gun control laws, you should read Kavanaugh's dissent in Heller II.
Yes. There have been dozens of cases that the SCOTUS has declined to review. They refused to hear 10 cases just in 2020. The SCOTUS refused to hear challenges to gun laws for 9 years until the NYRPA case. As a result, almost no gun regulations were overturned after Heller.
Are you forgetting Caetano? We've seen Heller used to overturn gun laws in lower courts in cases like Young v Hawaii and Maloney v Singas.

Regarding the number of cases taken up by SCOTUS:

Inasmuch, therefore, as all that a denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari means is that fewer than four members of the Court thought it should be granted, this Court has rigorously insisted that such a denial carries with it no implication whatever regarding the Court's views on the merits of a case which it has declined to review. The Court has said this again and again; again and again the admonition has to be repeated.

Maryland v Baltimore Radio Show, Inc.

STATE OF MARYLAND v. BALTIMORE RADIO SHOW, Inc. et al. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

SCOTUS typically only reviews about 100-150 of the more than 7,000 cases it is asked to review each year.

As to NYRPA, the NY law was too strict -- to the point where a NYC gun owner couldn't transport a gun to a domicile or shooting range outside the city's borders. (As in, I'm fully in favor of firearm laws, and even I can see how that's too restrictive.) NYC repealed that specific out-of-city portion, which rendered the case moot. Thus, NYC's premises licenses still heavily restrict transport, but the law now allows the owner to transport their permitted firearm(s) to a home or shooting range outside NYC. If the fundamental regulation of a premise license was at issue, then the case would have been heard.

Yet the City of New York insisted for seven years that the law was both Constitutional and necessary for the safety of its citizens all the way to the 2nd Circuit Court, and only backed down from this position when SCOTUS threatened to review. It seems fairly obvious why - they knew it wouldn't be upheld, and that they couldn't allow SCOTUS to review a case that could result in a decision that required strict scrutiny for gun control laws.

Nothing in the WA laws is anywhere near as restrictive. Taking a required firearm class doesn't prevent you from owning, transporting or using a firearm. Neither do secure storage requirements. Waiting periods are one of those "long-standing provisions." Numerous states have age restrictions on firearms, that aren't getting overturned.


lol, no, try again. People spent a decade challenging gun regulations in the courts, even when the court only had 4 firm conservative votes.

It's the four conservatives and the four liberals who don't trust Roberts. If either side knew which way he'd jump the four justices who would be supported would gladly take up 2A cases.

I'd also say it is pretty desperate, and a teeny bit biased, to say that the only way you can get the rulings you want is to stack the court with rabid conservatives.

I'd say that using terms like "rabid conservatives" and "gun rights extremists" shows who is biased here.
 
Top Bottom