US Supreme Court denies cert on CT and NY assault weapons ban

[heyjoe]

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear a legal challenge that claimed the assault weapons ban included in New York’s SAFE Act was unconstitutional.

http://www.buffalonews.com/city-reg...hear-challenge-to-new-yorks-safe-act-20160620

More bad news for New York and Connecticut gun owners. This denial of cert by the Supreme Court will embolden the gun control forces in other states/ and or locations as well as at the federal level at a very bad time currently.

 

[gbw]

For all gun owners. I think at minimum this is very bad news for the future of all semi-auto, detachable magazine guns of any description or type.

It is barely possible, if the U.S. Supreme Court makeup changes substantially in our favor, that this will be revisited. Right now that looks like a pipe dream.

For those of you who live in a gun friendly state, do not take much comfort. If Congress passes such a law and the president signs it, it would (forgive me) trump state laws regardless of what they say. This is very possible over the next few years.

 

[CLP]

I think they did that because they'd likely end up with a split vote. Heck, it could've turned out 5 to 3 against, so I don't think it's necessarily bad news in the long run. However, the long term outlook is poor. The next president appoints at least two justices.

 

[Aim1]

This is good or bad depending on our next SCOTUS judges.



If it was a split 4-4, the lower court ruling banning ARs and mags would stand. Which would be bad.


If we get a pro-2nd Amendment judge we are good, if not, we will be in trouble. Hopefully we get some pro-2nd Amendment judges in tr near future.

 

[ilbob]

I think the high court has other things to take up. There just is not enough time in the court's schedule to take up every case that might deserve consideration. They have to pick and choose just due to the sheer volume of cases that are brought to their attention.

 

[gbw]

Lower court ruling for ban stands anyhow. If it was 4-4 they would have taken it. Takes 4 justices in favor to review a case.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I just noticed that this thread had been closed. I must have done it, but I don't remember doing so. And when I close a thread, I always making a closing post.

Anyway, I've reopened the thread.

One thing to remember is that no inferences can be drawn from a denial of certiorari by the Supreme Court. It has no implications regarding the merits of the case. It only means that fewer than four Justices voted to hear the case; and we can never know why those voting against hearing the case did so, unless they decide to tell us.

So it's pretty much a waste of time to speculate about what this might mean.

 

[Ellsnjel]

Probably for the best as having the court hear it, given the justices voting records the best we could hope for would be a split. Better to leave the issue undecided until a more favorable court can take up the issue than to risk the bad precedent being set.

 

[gbw]

I wondered.

Anyhow, at the risk of wasting a little time in useless speculation, not exactly unheard of on internet boards. And inferences can sometimes be correctly drawn from past votes.

Possibilities are:

There aren't 4 justices who think ban should be overturned. Unlikely the laws can ever be overturned - see below.

There are exactly 4 justices who think it should be overturned, but they aren't confident they have a 5th. In this case the smart move is for one or more of the 4 to vote to deny review of the laws for now, hoping for a more favorable court makeup in the future. Remember, once the Supreme Court takes a case, a tie vote affirms the appealed law(s) in this case upholding the ban laws.
​

Thomas and Alito, probably for overturning the ban.

Roberts maybe at best, but very hard to know.

Hard to see Kennedy with us this time.

Forget the other 4.

So, to protect us from laws banning these weapons, state or federal, to be safe we'll need at least 3 new judges on the court who think the ban should be struck down. More if current retirement rumors are true.

Unlikely for now, and sadly at this point I'd give pretty good odds against that EVER happening.

It's completely possible there will be only one judge in favor of overturning the bans soon after the election .

 

[Frank Ettin]

...It's completely possible...

And it's also completely possible that nothing you've written in your post has anything to do with reality.

Further useless speculation will get this thread closed.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

I would rather have really good plaintiffs with on-the-point standing and solid cases, like Heller '08, like McDonald '10, rather than have a case like US v Miller 1939 which is in many ways a nullity (both sides pick and choose what they want to see in Miller '39).

It would be nice to see a gun rights case as clear as Loving v Virginia 1967 which did away with the Virginia 1924 Racial Integrity Act. Clear case, appealing (in more ways than one) plaintiffs, clear standing, good cases, that makes clear the questioned law does more harm than good.

With the American left, plaintiffs who are pornographers can make compelling First Amendment free speech cases. 2A advocates have to produce plaintiffs who can walk on water to make compelling Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms cases.

I do NOT want to force a decision on a poor, weak case affecting my 2A rights.

 

[gbw]

And it's also completely possible that nothing you've written in your post has anything to do with reality.

Further useless speculation will get this thread closed.

So much for transparency; I'll still take that bet.

Why close it? To what purpose? We're doing no harm, it's clear we're speculating and the topic is important to us.

Supreme Court speculation is a national past time. Much conversation involves speculation, it's impossible to have all facts on all topics. We aren't slandering, threatening, insulting, misleading or hurting anyone.

 

[Spats McGee]

And it's also completely possible that nothing you've written in your post has anything to do with reality.

Further useless speculation will get this thread closed.

So much for transparency; I'll still take that bet.

Why close it? To what purpose? We're doing no harm, it's clear we're speculating and the topic is important to us.

Supreme Court speculation is a national past time. Much conversation involves speculation, it's impossible to have all facts on all topics. We aren't slandering, threatening, insulting, misleading or hurting anyone.

Then it can be a national pastime elsewhere. This isn't "much conversation," it's THR's Legal forum and it's very narrowly focused. If you have citations to authority to back up your speculation, feel free to share them when the opportunity arises again.

I thought Frank was pretty clear on this.