• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • 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!

Supreme Court turns away challenge to state bans on assault weapons

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,255
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The Supreme Court turned away another challenge to state laws banning the sale of rapid-fire assault weapons on Monday, a victory for gun control supporters at a time of heightened public concern over the issue.Without comment or a dissent, the justices dismissed appeals from gun-rights advocates in Connecticut and New York who contended the state bans violated their rights under the 2nd Amendment.

So, does the 2nd Amendment come before the 10th Amendment? SCOTUS, I think, just said no. However, the 10th Amendment says that rights not specified in the Constitution belong to the states, but the right to bear arms IS specified. I honestly believe that not taking this case was a bad decision.

Discussion?

Article is here.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The fourteen amendment made the second amendment apply to states. With that in mind states should be held to the same standard as the federal government when it comes to the second amendment.
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,861
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So, does the 2nd Amendment come before the 10th Amendment? SCOTUS, I think, just said no. However, the 10th Amendment says that rights not specified in the Constitution belong to the states, but the right to bear arms IS specified. I honestly believe that not taking this case was a bad decision.

Discussion?

Article is here.

Saying nothing, says nothing. The article says that saying nothing means: "The high court’s refusal to even consider the claim that the 2nd Amendment includes the right to own a rapid-fire weapon strongly suggest the majority of justices see the Constitution’s protection of gun rights as more limited than many gun-rights advocates maintain." There are so many inaccuracies in that statement, that it destroys the author and the rest of the article.

What do I think? This means nothing other than that - nothing. The case can still be brought before the court later on, although the current lower court ruling will stand in the meantime.

McDonald held that the 2nd Amendment was Incorporated to the States so the 10th does not apply.
 

Unitedwestand13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
20,720
Reaction score
6,276
Location
Sunnyvale California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Saying nothing, says nothing. The article says that saying nothing means: "The high court’s refusal to even consider the claim that the 2nd Amendment includes the right to own a rapid-fire weapon strongly suggest the majority of justices see the Constitution’s protection of gun rights as more limited than many gun-rights advocates maintain." There are so many inaccuracies in that statement, that it destroys the author and the rest of the article.

What do I think? This means nothing other than that - nothing. The case can still be brought before the court later on, although the current lower court ruling will stand in the meantime.

McDonald held that the 2nd Amendment was Incorporated to the States so the 10th does not apply.

And yet the court, for whatever reason, refused to hear the challenge.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,255
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
And yet the court, for whatever reason, refused to hear the challenge.

That could have been because they didn't want to waste their time on an expected 4-4 decision, so I think that Beaudreaux has a point here. As for the McDonald Decision, this is not settled law, since it did not go any further than the 7th Court of Appeals, although I think that was correctly decided.
 
Last edited:

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,861
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
And yet the court, for whatever reason, refused to hear the challenge.

True.

It could be because they feel that it's a settled issue after McDonald v Chicago, just as easily as it could be because of what the OP article author postulates without any evidence whatsoever. There's in fact more circumstantial evidence that it's what I just said, since McDonald v Chicago is settled law. However, there's no factual empirical evidence about any reason. Saying nothing, means nothing.
 

Gonzo Rodeo

better late than pregnant
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 30, 2011
Messages
4,161
Reaction score
1,373
Location
Here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Private
So, does the 2nd Amendment come before the 10th Amendment? SCOTUS, I think, just said no. However, the 10th Amendment says that rights not specified in the Constitution belong to the states, but the right to bear arms IS specified. I honestly believe that not taking this case was a bad decision.

Discussion?

Article is here.

Saying nothing, says nothing. The article says that saying nothing means: "The high court’s refusal to even consider the claim that the 2nd Amendment includes the right to own a rapid-fire weapon strongly suggest the majority of justices see the Constitution’s protection of gun rights as more limited than many gun-rights advocates maintain." There are so many inaccuracies in that statement, that it destroys the author and the rest of the article.

What do I think? This means nothing other than that - nothing. The case can still be brought before the court later on, although the current lower court ruling will stand in the meantime.

McDonald held that the 2nd Amendment was Incorporated to the States so the 10th does not apply.

And yet the court, for whatever reason, refused to hear the challenge.

That could have been because they didn't want to waste their time on an expected 4-4 decision, so I think that Beaudreaux has a point here. As for the McDonald Decision, this is not settled law, since it did not go any further than the 7th Court of Appeals.

It's not just a refusal to waste time with a 4-4 decision; a tie would return to the lower court's ruling, effectively making the lower court ruling the law of the land. Once the court already hears a case, it is far less likely to hear the same case again for many, many years. By refusing to hear the case, the court (let's be honest, Roberts) is delaying a decision until such time as the court can make its own ruling. And, for Roberts, that ruling is undoubtedly going to be against the lower court.
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,861
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That could have been because they didn't want to waste their time on an expected 4-4 decision, so I think that Beaudreaux has a point here. As for the McDonald Decision, this is not settled law, since it did not go any further than the 7th Court of Appeals, although I think that was correctly decided.

That's what I thought as well - why go through all the hoops for a 4-4 deadlock when McDonald is the settled law, and this is only one circuit with no national implications.
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,861
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It's not just a refusal to waste time with a 4-4 decision; a tie would return to the lower court's ruling, effectively making the lower court ruling the law of the land. Once the court already hears a case, it is far less likely to hear the same case again for many, many years. By refusing to hear the case, the court (let's be honest, Roberts) is delaying a decision until such time as the court can make its own ruling. And, for Roberts, that ruling is undoubtedly going to be against the lower court.

A 4-4 ruling only keeps the lower court ruling in place until it can be decided by a majority in the SCOTUS. A 4-4 ruling does not make the lower court ruling settled law. In fact, if there are two or more lower courts with opposing rulings, and the SCOTUS comes down 4-4, each ruling within each circuit stands, meaning that the law in one circuit will be different than it is in another circuit.
 

Gonzo Rodeo

better late than pregnant
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 30, 2011
Messages
4,161
Reaction score
1,373
Location
Here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Private
A 4-4 ruling only keeps the lower court ruling in place until it can be decided by a majority in the SCOTUS. A 4-4 ruling does not make the lower court ruling settled law. In fact, if there are two or more lower courts with opposing rulings, and the SCOTUS comes down 4-4, each ruling within each circuit stands, meaning that the law in one circuit will be different than it is in another circuit.

When it comes to precedent, there really isn't much practical difference, even if that happens to be two different laws in two different circuits.

The court is still less likely to hear a case again that it just heard. By not taking the case, it is more likely to be argued for the court shortly after the court's new composition, instead of several years later.
 

justabubba

long standing member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
54,567
Reaction score
35,828
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It's not just a refusal to waste time with a 4-4 decision; a tie would return to the lower court's ruling, effectively making the lower court ruling the law of the land. Once the court already hears a case, it is far less likely to hear the same case again for many, many years. By refusing to hear the case, the court (let's be honest, Roberts) is delaying a decision until such time as the court can make its own ruling. And, for Roberts, that ruling is undoubtedly going to be against the lower court.

but after hillary packs the court with her appointees, Roberts will be in the distinct minority
 

Gonzo Rodeo

better late than pregnant
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 30, 2011
Messages
4,161
Reaction score
1,373
Location
Here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Private
but after hillary packs the court with her appointees, Roberts will be in the distinct minority

That is assuming that she wins.

Some people play the game as if they haven't already lost. :shrug:
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,255
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
That's what I thought as well - why go through all the hoops for a 4-4 deadlock when McDonald is the settled law, and this is only one circuit with no national implications.

I disagree with you that McDonald is settled. Depending on the next justice which is appointed, this could go either way. But I do like the argument in McDonald, which is going to be very difficult to refute. Had the GOP confirmed Merrick Garland, who is quite moderate, this would have been settled to the satisfaction of the plaintiffs. Since Republicans chose to ignore him, it could come back to bite them on their asses when Hillary nominates a screaming liberal Justice, and the new Democratic Senate invokes the nuclear option to confirm him or her. Not holding hearings on Garland was, IMHO, a huge mistake.
 

justabubba

long standing member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
54,567
Reaction score
35,828
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
That is assuming that she wins.

Some people play the game as if they haven't already lost. :shrug:

i noticed that about your post insisting Roberts would be determinative; wanted to point you instead in the correct direction
 

justabubba

long standing member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
54,567
Reaction score
35,828
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I disagree with you that McDonald is settled. Depending on the next justice which is appointed, this could go either way. But I do like the argument in McDonald, which is going to be very difficult to refute. Had the GOP confirmed Merrick Garland, who is quite moderate, this would have been settled to the satisfaction of the plaintiffs. Since Republicans chose to ignore him, it could come back to bite them on their asses when Hillary nominates a screaming liberal Justice, and the new Democratic Senate invokes the nuclear option to confirm him or her. Not holding hearings on Garland was, IMHO, a huge mistake.

once hillary is elected, they can correct that mistake ... assuming Obama or Merrick himself, do(es) not rescind that nomination
 

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
28,764
Reaction score
20,448
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
As with many cases that have risen on appeal to the Supreme Court the past few months, this is simply another case where the ideology of the various Justices trumps their sworn fealty to the Constitution. In effect, it simply reflects that 4 liberal Justices ignore the Constitution for ideological reasons and supports perfectly the position of Senate Republicans to refuse to allow President Obama to appoint another liberal activist to replace Justice Scalia who spent his lifetime and time on the bench respecting and adhering to the language and intent of your governing documents.

Each of these cases that were refused by the 4-4 court will find their way back to the court in one form or another once the court has its 9th Justice. Unfortunately, for those who honour the Constitution it is highly likely that another President Clinton will be able to nominate that Justice. It will be interesting to see if Republicans retain control of the Senate and are prepared to "Bork" any nominee who appears ideological.
 

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
58,680
Reaction score
45,532
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
True.

It could be because they feel that it's a settled issue after McDonald v Chicago, just as easily as it could be because of what the OP article author postulates without any evidence whatsoever. There's in fact more circumstantial evidence that it's what I just said, since McDonald v Chicago is settled law. However, there's no factual empirical evidence about any reason. Saying nothing, means nothing.
Well, yes - except that it 'says' the ban legally stands unless the Court so chooses to take up the case in the future, if indeed it ever does (I believe it eventually will, though).
 

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
58,680
Reaction score
45,532
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I disagree with you that McDonald is settled. Depending on the next justice which is appointed, this could go either way. But I do like the argument in McDonald, which is going to be very difficult to refute. Had the GOP confirmed Merrick Garland, who is quite moderate, this would have been settled to the satisfaction of the plaintiffs. Since Republicans chose to ignore him, it could come back to bite them on their asses when Hillary nominates a screaming liberal Justice, and the new Democratic Senate invokes the nuclear option to confirm him or her. Not holding hearings on Garland was, IMHO, a huge mistake.
A lot of *ifs* & *whens* here, but possible!

The assumption of a changed Senate and subsequent nuclear option, is definitely not a given though IMO.
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,861
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I disagree with you that McDonald is settled. Depending on the next justice which is appointed, this could go either way. But I do like the argument in McDonald, which is going to be very difficult to refute. Had the GOP confirmed Merrick Garland, who is quite moderate, this would have been settled to the satisfaction of the plaintiffs. Since Republicans chose to ignore him, it could come back to bite them on their asses when Hillary nominates a screaming liberal Justice, and the new Democratic Senate invokes the nuclear option to confirm him or her. Not holding hearings on Garland was, IMHO, a huge mistake.

There's a lot of time between the November election and the January Inauguration that would give the GOP more than enough time to confirm Garland, if they chose to do so.
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,861
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well, yes - except that it 'says' the ban legally stands unless the Court so chooses to take up the case in the future, if indeed it ever does (I believe it eventually will, though).

True, but the state's ability to do so, only stands in those states within that circuit.
 

EMNofSeattle

No Shame!
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2014
Messages
29,201
Reaction score
8,871
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
And yet the court, for whatever reason, refused to hear the challenge.

What it really means is that neither side thinks they'll get a majority opinion and since circuits have made different rulings on the topic they don't want to continue to muddy the waters.

let's say they agree to take one circuits case (I think the 2nd has ruled on this) and don't reach a majority opinion, well one panel on the Sixth Circuit did come up with a gun friendly opinion, so that case will not be effected.

In other words, since SCOTUS cannot currently clearly resolve this issue, it makes no sense to continue to muddy the waters. there is nothing else to be assumed from this,
 

EMNofSeattle

No Shame!
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2014
Messages
29,201
Reaction score
8,871
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
once hillary is elected, they can correct that mistake ... assuming Obama or Merrick himself, do(es) not rescind that nomination

or if Hillary wins POTUS and the GOP performs strogly in senate elections (a possibility consider Hillary's high numbers v Trump are only due to Trumps greater unfavorability) and the 2018 senate map will again favor the GOP they could concievably block a judge for an entire term.
 

Lutherf

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
41,577
Reaction score
47,977
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The decision in the case in question (Shew v Malloy) essentially says that the bans in both NY and CT violate the 2A but since they don't violate it that much and the ban is a matter of public safety it doesn't violate the 2A enough to overturn it. It's an absurd decision.

My guess is that the only reason the court isn't hearing it now is because of the political climate and the vacancy due to Scalia. When they rule on this subject they want a full court and a settled election.
 

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
58,680
Reaction score
45,532
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
True, but the state's ability to do so, only stands in those states within that circuit.
Yes, agreed.

And to play Devil's advocate further: I believe it would also allow other circuits to rule the same as the NY & CT circuit, if that circuit court reads similarly.
 

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
58,680
Reaction score
45,532
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
or if Hillary wins POTUS and the GOP performs strogly in senate elections (a possibility consider Hillary's high numbers v Trump are only due to Trumps greater unfavorability) and the 2018 senate map will again favor the GOP they could concievably block a judge for an entire term.
The above is something I never could have predicted - but you are absolutely right in technical terms.

In his recent Fox interview, the President suggested the Dems could do just this exact thing (deny a nomination for a term) in retribution, though this may have been rhetorical comparison rather than implied threat.
 
Top Bottom