* * *
"WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday declined to review a
sweeping ban on so-called “assault weapons” enacted in the wake of the
2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. . . .
"Without comment, the Supreme Court noted in an order that it wouldn’t hear the case, known as Shew v. Malloy, which sought to undo an earlier ruling that upheld the bulk of Connecticut’s state ban on assault weapons, as well as a similar one passed in New York. Among other prohibitions, the bans criminalize possession of a wide range of semi-automatic firearms and large-capacity magazines. An appeals court ruled in October that those provisions do not violate the Second Amendment.
"Notably, no justices disagreed publicly with the court’s decision not to get involved in the dispute.
"Last December, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, dissented forcefully when the high court declined to hear a similar case out of Illinois. In that case, Thomas said the court’s inaction meant the right to bear arms was being treated "as a second-class right."
"But given the political climate following Scalia’s death and the larger controversy over the constitutional contours of gun rights, it was highly unlikely that the Supreme Court would decide to step into the fray of this contentious debate."
"Without comment, the Supreme Court noted in an order that it wouldn’t hear the case, known as Shew v. Malloy, which sought to undo an earlier ruling that upheld the bulk of Connecticut’s state ban on assault weapons, as well as a similar one passed in New York. Among other prohibitions, the bans criminalize possession of a wide range of semi-automatic firearms and large-capacity magazines. An appeals court ruled in October that those provisions do not violate the Second Amendment.
"Notably, no justices disagreed publicly with the court’s decision not to get involved in the dispute.
"Last December, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, dissented forcefully when the high court declined to hear a similar case out of Illinois. In that case, Thomas said the court’s inaction meant the right to bear arms was being treated "as a second-class right."
"But given the political climate following Scalia’s death and the larger controversy over the constitutional contours of gun rights, it was highly unlikely that the Supreme Court would decide to step into the fray of this contentious debate."
* * *
This was pretty much a win-win situation for gun safety. If they heard the case and it wound up with a 4 to 4 tie, it would have the same effect as not taking it, because the lower court decision being appealed favored the ban. Possibly it would be stronger if they heard the case and handed down a majority vote in favor of upholding the bans. But the decision would likely not be accepted as applying to states other than CT and NY, given that the court does not have a full complement of nine justices. Better to wait until there is a clear liberal majority of a full nine-justice court, which we will have this time next year if Hillary Clinton is elected.
Ralph
PS: Breaking news Monday night: Sen. Chris Murphy's senate filibuster last week forced Republican leadership to agree to hold votes on expanding background checks and on stopping people on the no-fly, terrorist suspect list from being able to buy guns. Public polls show over 80% of the people want these sensible controls. The senate did vote Monday night, and both bills were defeated by the Republican majority. The NRA still reigns.
Ralph
PS: Breaking news Monday night: Sen. Chris Murphy's senate filibuster last week forced Republican leadership to agree to hold votes on expanding background checks and on stopping people on the no-fly, terrorist suspect list from being able to buy guns. Public polls show over 80% of the people want these sensible controls. The senate did vote Monday night, and both bills were defeated by the Republican majority. The NRA still reigns.
No comments:
Post a Comment