Supreme Court Declines To Consider Challenge To Assault Weapons Ban

Supreme Court Declines To Consider Challenge To Assault Weapons Ban

Tyler Durden’s pictureSubmitted by Tyler Durden on 12/07/2015

These are the two guns used in the worst mass shooting America has seen since Sandy Hook:

The DPMS and Smith & Wesson M&P 15 assault rifles were purchased legally, but needless to say, the fact that the husband and wife duo managed to kill 14 and injure nearly two dozen in a short period of time in last week’s attack on a San Bernardino employee holiday party has raised fresh questions about gun control in America. 

Tashfeen Malik and Syed Rizwan Farook’s rampage was of course just the latest in a string of shootings that have shaken America to its core. Predictably, each new “incident” brings out the gun control advocates which in turn leads to more gun purchases as Americans fear the government is out to confiscate their firearms on the way to effectively nullifying the Second Amendment. Have a look at the following graphic we published earlier today:

Well, in a conveniently timed decision, the Supreme Court said on Monday that it will not hear a Second Amendment challenge to an Illinois ordinance banning semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity mags. As The New York Times writes, “the ordinance banned some weapons by name, including AR-15s and AK-47s [but] more generally, it prohibited possession of what it called assault weapons, defining them as semiautomatic guns that can accept large-capacity magazines and have features like a grip for the nontrigger hand.” 

So in other words, guns like those used by Malik and Farook. 

The Illinois State Rifle Association and a Dr. Arie S. Friedman, challenged the ordinance, contending that the term “assault weapons is an imaginary and pejorative category.”

Friedman, The Times notes, “had kept guns and magazines for self-defense that were banned by the ordinance.” Friedman attempted to draw a parallel between the Illinois ordinance and a what he and the Rifle Association claim is an ongoing effort to undermine District of Columbia v. Heller, a 2008 decision that struck down a federal law which banned keeping handguns at home for self-defense. The lower courts’ exhibit a “massive resistance to Heller and refuse to treat Second Amendment rights as deserving respect equal to other constitutional rights,” they contend. 

Here’s the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago’s rationale for upholding the ordinance:

“A ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines might not prevent shootings in Highland Park (where they are already rare), but it may reduce the carnage if a mass shooting occurs. If a ban on semiautomatic guns and large-capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that’s a substantial benefit.” 

And here’s the dissenting opinion: 

“By prohibiting a class of weapons commonly used throughout the country. Highland Park’s ordinance infringes upon the rights of its citizens to keep weapons in their homes for the purpose of defending themselves, their families and their property.”

Finally, here’s Justice Thomas’ dissent from the Supreme Court’s certiorari denial:

“[O]ur central holding in” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), was “that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home.” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 780 (2010) (plurality opinion). And in McDonald, we recognized that the Second Amendment applies fully against the States as well as the Federal Government. Id., at 750; id., at 805 (THOMAS, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Despite these holdings, several Courts of Appeals— including the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the decision below—have upheld categorical bans on firearms that millions of Americans commonly own for lawful purposes. See 784 F. 3d 406, 410–412 (2015). Because noncompliance with our Second Amendment precedents warrants this Court’s attention as much as any of our precedents, I would grant certiorari in this case. 

Obviously, the inevtiable result of these types of decisions will be precisely the opposite of their intent. That is, at no other time in history have Americans been more zealous about protecting their right to keep and bear arms, and with each mass shooting and subsequent Obama gun control tirade, the public’s fear only grows, leading directly to more gun purchases and MOAR of this:

So way to go federal government, what you’re doing is clearly working – only in the opposite direction from which you intended.

*  *  *

Certiorari denial (scroll to bottom):


Leave a Reply