Luke Skywalker
Super Moderator
{vb:raw ozzmodz_postquote}:
Get the news
Log In or Subscribe to skip
7 [h=6]Share This Story![/h]Let friends in your social network know what you are reading about
[h=4]Supreme Court won't hear challenge to city's assault weapons ban[/h]The Supreme Court has allowed handguns for self-defense -- but not semiautomatic weapons?
{# #}
[h=4]Sent![/h]A link has been sent to your friend's email address.
[h=4]Posted![/h]A link has been posted to your Facebook feed.
[h=2]UP NEXT[/h][h=2]03[/h]
People in Los Angeles talk about what part guns have played in their lives and if they think there should be any new gun control laws.
A variety of military-style semiautomatic rifles obtained during a buy-back program are displayed at Los Angeles police headquarters in 2012.(Photo: Damian Dovarganes, AP)
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court refused Monday<span style="color: Red;">*</span>to hear<span style="color: Red;">*</span>a challenge to a Chicago suburb's ban on semiautomatic "assault" weapons, an indication that a majority of justices feel such bans are constitutional or should be left up to state and local governments.
The court denied a petition backed<span style="color: Red;">*</span>by the Illinois State Rifle Association seeking review of an appeals court's ruling that Highland Park, Ill., can ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Such weapons were used<span style="color: Red;">*</span>in several<span style="color: Red;">*</span>recent mass shootings across the country, including those that killed 14 people last week in San Bernardino, Calif, as well as<span style="color: Red;">*</span>26 at a Connecticut elementary school and 12 at a Colorado movie theater in 2012.
Similar bans are on the books in California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland, Connecticut and Hawaii,<span style="color: Red;">*</span>and none have been struck down, so the justices had no legal conflict to resolve. The statutes are not directly at odds with the high court's rulings in 2008 and 2010 permitting handguns to be kept at home for self-defense. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in District of Columbia v. Heller that the court was not upholding “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
Still, Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas said they would have taken the case. Thomas wrote a six-page dissent from the court's denial of Arie Friedman's challenge to the gun ban.
"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," Thomas wrote.
USA TODAY
The weapon that binds Sandy Hook and San Bernardino: Sandy Hook families
"Roughly 5 million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles," he said. "The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons."
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit ruled 2-1 in April<span style="color: Red;">*</span>that the city's ban was reasonable.<span style="color: Red;">*</span>"Unlike the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns, Highland Park’s ordinance leaves residents with many self?defense options," the court majority said.
"If a ban on semi?automatic guns and large?capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting<span style="color: Red;">*</span>and makes the public feel safer as a result, that’s a substantial benefit," Judge Frank Easterbrook, who was appointed to the appeals court by President Ronald Reagan, wrote.
Judge Daniel Manion dissented from that ruling. "While most persons do not require extraordinary means to defend their homes, the fact remains that some do," he said. "Ultimately, it is up to the lawful gun owner and not the government to decide these matters."
In recent years, the justices have stayed out of state and local disputes over gun rights. Just last June, they declined<span style="color: Red;">*</span>to review San Francisco's law requiring that handguns be disabled or locked up when they are not being carried. And in 2013, the court<span style="color: Red;">*</span>refused to consider a challenge to a<span style="color: Red;">*</span>New Jersey law barring most residents from carrying guns in public. That issue may come back to the high court again soon.
Follow<span style="color: Red;">*</span>@richardjwolf<span style="color: Red;">*</span>on Twitter
0) { %> 0) { %>
0) { %>
Powered By WizardRSS.com | Full Text RSS Feed