Sporting Rifle Ban before Supreme Court

[Robb]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3347483/posts

"The U.S. Supreme Court could announce as early as Tuesday whether it will hear a challenge to a suburban Chicago law banning firearms commonly known as assault weapons.

If the court agrees to hear the case, it would cast a shadow over similar bans in seven states. But declining to take it up would boost efforts to impose such bans elsewhere, at a time of renewed interest in gun regulation after recent mass shootings.

Gun rights advocates are challenging a 2013 law passed in Highland Park, Illinois, that bans the sale, purchase, or possession of semi-automatic weapons that can hold more than 10 rounds in a single ammunition clip or magazine. In passing the law, city officials cited the 2012 shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut and a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado.

The ban also lists certain specific rifles, including those resembling the AR-15 and AK-47 assault-style firearms."


Damn, let's hope they hear it and hope Roberts doesn't bend us over - again. If they decline, like I'm guessing they will, and with the Dems in control here in Denver I would expect another mag ban situation, but for rifles. Pessimistic doesn't even begin to describe how I see this playing out.

[asmo]

I doubt the court will see it as "ripe". Not enough spilt circuit courts to justify SCOTUS getting involved..yet.

[Dave]

I doubt the court will see it as "ripe". Not enough spilt circuit courts to justify SCOTUS getting involved..yet.

Unfortunately almost all lower courts have upheld the bans.

[Great-Kazoo]

Unfortunately almost all lower courts have upheld the bans.

All the more reason for the High Court to let it stand.

[asmo]

I doubt the court will see it as "ripe". Not enough spilt circuit courts to justify SCOTUS getting involved..yet.

I win. What do I get?

[Irving]

I win. What do I get?

A sporting rifle?

[wctriumph]

A sporting rifle?

At only three times MSRP! But wait, there is more! You can't own any bullet clips and stuff either!! Woo Hooo!!!

[legaleagle]

Not surprised they won't hear it. When hearing constitutional issues there are three levels of review. 1-rational basis 2-intermediate scrutiny and 3-strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny is applied when a constitutionally enumerated right is involved - here the 2a, which Heller and McDonald establish is the proper standard of review. 2 is for matters generally involving status of citizenship rights (alienation) and 3 is for all other laws challenged. 3 is a huge category and generally looks at the health safety and welfare of the public and whether the law challenged is over inclusive, underinclusive, violative of equal protrection and similar measures. So, to measure the feeling and well being of a ban based on safety does not work as the wrong level of scrutiny is being used to test the validity of the law. Of course the law can be passed, and left unchallenged or unwilling to be heard which leaves it on the books until the next challenge. To use the proper test of strict scrutiny places the burden on the government to show that it has a compelling reason (not just that it is better for the health safety and welfare) that the enumerated right should be restricted. This burden has traditionally been very difficult to overcome and Heller continues to support that in regards to the 2a. However, Heller was not a 9-0 decision, so there was some disagreement. As I recall, the dissent was over what level of scrutiny to apply. When looking at the 1a, limitations have been allowed as far as time, place and manner for the speech involved. This is why pornography was viewed as art, despite many people finding it offensive. Curtailing an enumeration right is no taken lightly. This is probably why LEO still has to read you your rights subject to arrest, despite most people knowing them from watching tv. It is simply too important to infringe on the right.
It is too bad that scotus will not always act to invalidate bad laws. Often it seems scotus wants to leave it up to the states. Unfortunately we are often left scratching our heads as to why scotus won't grant certiorari to hear the matter. I see this on the state level too and bad law is often created as a result. All we can do is keep fighting and funding organizations to act with our collective funds to bring cases to the courts. We must stand united, at least more united than the opposition, no matter the cause.

[Rucker61]

How can they just ignore United States v Miller?

[Great-Kazoo]

How can they just ignore United States v Miller?

Look to Chicago & DC as they continue to ignore the court ruling regarding CCW issued in a timely manner, among other things.

WE (me & you) have better luck correcting the flag burning liberals over at the denver post. site.