Supreme Court turns away challenge to state bans on assault weapons

[danarhea]

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.

Once Democrats are assured of winning, my bet is that Garland comes off the table.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

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.

personally I don't like this "blocking a judge" thing and refusing to consider it. IMO it would be more honest (especially since some conservatives are going back to Bork for comparison) to simply hold a vote and vote the judge down, and say "send us another choice"

It leads me to believe that Merrick Garland may actually have enough support to survive a confirmation vote and the McConnell cabal is afraid that the only way to prevent Garland is to simply use his perogative to refuse a hearing altogether .

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Once Democrats are assured of winning, my bet is that Garland comes off the table.

maybe, it depends on if Obama actually wants Garland as a judge, if Obama wants his guy on the court he may not withdraw his nomination.

 

[danarhea]

maybe, it depends on if Obama actually wants Garland as a judge, if Obama wants his guy on the court he may not withdraw his nomination.

I disagree. Garland was a tool that the administration could use to show that Republicans had no interest, other than blocking any judge, even a moderate one. It was just a political move on Obama's part.

 

[Henrin]

I disagree. Garland was a tool that the administration could use to show that Republicans had no interest, other than blocking any judge, even a moderate one. It was just a political move on Obama's part.

Garland is not someone that can be trusted with the second amendment, so I see no reason to allow him anywhere near the SC.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Once Democrats are assured of winning, my bet is that Garland comes off the table.

Could be.

 

[Chomsky]

personally I don't like this "blocking a judge" thing and refusing to consider it. IMO it would be more honest (especially since some conservatives are going back to Bork for comparison) to simply hold a vote and vote the judge down, and say "send us another choice"

It leads me to believe that Merrick Garland may actually have enough support to survive a confirmation vote and the McConnell cabal is afraid that the only way to prevent Garland is to simply use his perogative to refuse a hearing altogether .

I very much agree with you.

Besides the votes lined up, McConnel wasn't going to risk the vote itself, the media coverage, and the political fall-out that a vote would involve.

 

[imyoda]

“……….Turning away two separate appeals without comment, the justices left intact federal appeals court rulings that said the bans comply with the constitutional right to bear arms.

New York and Connecticut are among seven states that outlaw weapons similar to one used by Omar Mateen in the June 12 massacre………..
New York, Connecticut Assault-Weapon Bans Let Stand by Court - Bloomberg Politics

…and 43 more states to go………

And I doubt the NRA try to bring another case to SCOTUS on this issue because they know they will lose based upon Scalia decision in the Heller case…….

 

[beerftw]

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.

I do not think they denied the case because they believe the tenth overided the 2nd, but they denied it because the court is split 4/4 and they knew they would end up with a stalemate anyways.

 

[TurtleDude]

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

that would help the GOP down the road

 

[TurtleDude]

“……….Turning away two separate appeals without comment, the justices left intact federal appeals court rulings that said the bans comply with the constitutional right to bear arms.

New York and Connecticut are among seven states that outlaw weapons similar to one used by Omar Mateen in the June 12 massacre………..
New York, Connecticut Assault-Weapon Bans Let Stand by Court - Bloomberg Politics

…and 43 more states to go………

And I doubt the NRA try to bring another case to SCOTUS on this issue because they know they will lose based upon Scalia decision in the Heller case…….

the last thing Democrats running for office in any state other than some of the loony tune left districts (like NYC or Boston or San Francisco) is a supreme court ruling against gun rights.

When Heller was issued, one of my close friends-one of the founders of the Federalist society-noted that was the worst news for the GOP in the 2008 elections.

 

[imyoda]

By refusing to hear the case means the lower court rulings apply.............States do have the right to regulate the sale/use/type of gun as so said in the Scalia decision in Heller.......PEROID..........res Judicata

And don't let anyone tell you otherwise

 

[Beaudreaux]

By refusing to hear the case means the lower court rulings apply.............States do have the right to regulate the sale/use/type of gun as so said in the Scalia decision in Heller.......PEROID..........res Judicata

Wrong. Read the thread to see why.

 

[TurtleDude]

By refusing to hear the case means the lower court rulings apply.............States do have the right to regulate the sale/use/type of gun as so said in the Scalia decision in Heller.......PEROID..........res Judicata

And don't let anyone tell you otherwise

LOL another bit of nonsense from Imyoda. what did McDonald Hold? that Chicago couldn't ban handgun sales. Looks like you are WRONG again.

 

[imyoda]

Wrong. Read the thread to see why.

Why can't you cite the reasons why you believe me to being incorrect..................When did it become proper for the poster to make the other to prove himself wrong?

If you cannot in your own words prove what I say .... Is incorrect.................the it not an argument of worth........


BTW

THIS SUBJECT IS POSTED IN THE WRONG AREA................BELONGS IN GENERAL POLITICAL DISCUSSION - GUN CONTROL........

 

[ttwtt78640]

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.

That (bolded above) is incomplete - 10A text is as follows:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Tenth Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw

The 2A specifies a right of the people, not only people that live in (or do not travel in) certain states. Using that logic then any other right of the people can be (severely?) limited simply by state law - that argument was not accepted for SSM restrictions.

 

[justabubba]

that would help the GOP down the road

how so?

 

[TurtleDude]

how so?

you don't know? same way Heller helped Obama

 

[Napoleon]

That (bolded above) is incomplete - 10A text is as follows:



Tenth Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw

The 2A specifies a right of the people, not only people that live in (or do not travel in) certain states. Using that logic then any other right of the people can be (severely?) limited simply by state law - that argument was not accepted for SSM restrictions.

It wasn't accepted for SSM bans because none of the States represented could provide a compelling State interest for those bans. The Supreme Court has long held that the right to own a gun does not translate into a right to own any gun.

 

[ludin]

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.

they should have remanded it back to the lower court to consider their previous ruling on guns which said that states could not legally ban the guns.
how a lower court can override a previous SCOTUS ruling is beyond me.

that pretty much means that any lower court can reverse any SCOTUS that was made prior you just have to find the right set of judges.

 

[ludin]

It wasn't accepted for SSM bans because none of the States represented could provide a compelling State interest for those bans. The Supreme Court has long held that the right to own a gun does not translate into a right to own any gun.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
see DC vs Heller.

The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense

the same could be said of semi-automatic rifles.

 

[Napoleon]

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
see DC vs Heller.

The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense

the same could be said of semi-automatic rifles.

What is the ratio of AR-15s used in an act of self-defense vs. criminal activity? That is likely what would be considered.

 

[justabubba]

you don't know? same way Heller helped Obama

how so?

 

[justabubba]

they should have remanded it back to the lower court to consider their previous ruling on guns which said that states could not legally ban the guns.
how a lower court can override a previous SCOTUS ruling is beyond me.

that pretty much means that any lower court can reverse any SCOTUS that was made prior you just have to find the right set of judges.

no, it means none of that

 

[haymarket]

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.

And it is. When we had a ban on the federal level under Pres Clinton - it was not ruled as unconstitutional. So these state bans are constitutional as well as any federal ban providing there still is an opportunity for the citizens to exercise their right under the Second Amendment.