SCOTUS [Chicago] Assault Weapon Ban Ruling

[ydoaPs]

Today, SCOTUS announced that they're leaving the assault weapon ban in place. Do you think having more mass shootings than days this year had any influence in their decision?

[moth]

It seems strange for the court to be so quiet on a hot-button issue like gun rights. Could the issue be more valuable as a wedge (to the divide and conquer forces that have us balkanized)?

The Atlantic has a bit of background and an iteration of your question.

[iNow]

Today, SCOTUS announced that they're leaving the assault weapon ban in place. Do you think having more mass shootings than days this year had any influence in their decision?

It's hard to say, but we must all recall that before being judges, they are all first human, and consequently are all subject to each of the associated human foibles and frailties.

 

With that said, their ruling is entirely aligned with and in support of centuries of SCOTUS rulings on guns until only the very recent past.

 

All rights have justifiable and constitutional limits, including each that we elevate as sacred and sacrosanct in the bill of rights itself. The 2nd amendment is in no way exceptional or exclusive in that particular regard.

[swansont]

It seems strange for the court to be so quiet on a hot-button issue like gun rights.

 

I don't think it's strange at all. The court can only consider questions that are brought before it, and are supposed to be resilient to outside considerations affecting it. There has to be some matter of law or procedure to consider for them to take a case.

[moth]

 

I don't think it's strange at all. The court can only consider questions that are brought before it, and are supposed to be resilient to outside considerations affecting it. There has to be some matter of law or procedure to consider for them to take a case.

 

My impression was the court had refused several gunrights cases in the last 5 or 6 years. Is there a list of cases the court has refused somewhere?

[swansont]

 

My impression was the court had refused several gunrights cases in the last 5 or 6 years.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if they had. If most justices think there was no error in applying or interpreting precedent by the lower court, why would they take on a case?

[moth]

If the supreme court refuses to hear a case do they say why?
Slate magazine was wondering about this reluctance in the court to hear gun rights cases last year.

 

"These questions have bedeviled the lower courts over the past few years, with judges all across the country offering contradictory answers. One federal appeals court held that police can exercise broad discretion over who can carry a gun in public, while another held the opposite. Some courts have adopted a test for Second Amendment cases that gives lawmakers considerable leeway to enact gun laws, while others have insisted on a more strict scrutiny. In some ways, the current Supreme Court jurisprudence on guns raised as many questions as it answered."

Sitting on their hands may be an easy way to preserve the status quo.

[overtone]

 

 

With that said, their ruling is entirely aligned with and in support of centuries of SCOTUS rulings on guns until only the very recent past.

All of them - recent past included - have been consistent.

[ydoaPs]

All of them - recent past included - have been consistent.

Until 2007.