The United States Supreme Court has made some good decisions in 2015. They issued a blow to housing discrimination proponents, they upheld Obamacare’s subsidies, and they made gay marriage the law of the land.
Now they’ve ruled by default, or in this case, chosen not to overturn Illinois’ assault weapons ban. This is a big SCREW YOU to the NRA and their crony lobbyists.
The justices in the Seventh Court of Appeals said in their ruling that “assault weapons with large-capacity magazines can fire more shots, faster, and thus can be more dangerous in the aggregate. Why else are they the weapons of choice in mass shootings?”
Luckily the Supreme Court agreed, as it did in 2008. Only Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia wished to review the law, falling two short of the necessary four to hear a case. But their minds were made up. Writing the dissent for why the Court should hear the case, Thomas said it was up to the Court to stop the states “from relegating the Second Amendment to a second-class right.”
The 2013 law which was passed in Highland Park, Illinois banned the sale, purchase, or possession of semi-automatic weapons, commonly referred to as assault rifles, which hold more than ten rounds in a single magazine. Like the assault weapons ban from 1994, the Highland Park bill included specific rifles, including such as the AR-15 and AK-47 styles. The Illinois State Rifle Association filed the lawsuit, saying the AR-15 was one of the best-selling guns nation wide. Again, it was about profits.
Similar cases were upheld at 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals from New York and Connecticut, both states that responded to the tragedy at Sandy Hook in December 2012.
In response to the tragedy in San Bernardino, in which the Republicans do what they always do - nothing - the Supreme Court (which is majority conservative) decided to act.
Thank you Justices Ginsburg, Alito, Breyer, Kagan, Roberts, Sotomayor and Kennedy.
Featured image via Wikipedia
These bans are irrational.
How so?
Irrational because its keeping them out of hands of criminals?sounds legit.
No it is not, only the hands of law a abiding citizens
How so? Banning assault weapons keeps other weapons out of your hands? Please do tell me how? Funny I don’t recall any mass shooting where a shotgun or hand gun were used.Oh,that’s right because there weren’t .
Kimberly tell me how that would keep assault weapons out of the hand of criminals are you so naive to believe that the criminals will won,t be able to get them they can get them from mexico are some other country it only hurts law biding citizens not the criminals
No,you tell me MD how 300,000,000 guns have made this Country safer? Close loopholes,stronger back ground checks,Comon sense things that need to be done to prevent these mass shootings that keep happening over and over again.All I hear is banning guns will never work,Republicans seem to to think banning gays getting married and abortions will though.If you don’t think it will work then tell me what will???
When the 2nd Amendment goes, none of the others will be guaranteed.
Where in the 2A does it say you can have an assault weapon?
To play devils advocate to this question, I’ll turn it around to see if anyone can answer “Where in the constitution does it say you can have gay marriage or an abortion?” Just because the exact wordage isn’t there doesn’t mean that the right isn’t implied. I’m not a constitutional scholar, but when someone asks a question with an absolute, I like to refer that back to other rights that have been upheld without the specific wordage being entrenched into an amendment.
The right to keep and bear arms (plural), not musket, hand guns ar-15, shall not be infringed. Why did the founders put this in? For hunting, no, for protection of a government out of control? Yes, therefore the people should be able to carry the same weapons that the government does.
Should a citizen have the right to buy or build atomic weapons ???
That is the conclusion if you really want people to have or “carry the same weapons that the government does” !!!
When they attempt to nullify the 2nd amendment, I believe that is the beginning of festivities. When they move to strip the last visages of our rights from “We the People” their perceived authority ends.
the bill of rights limits government not the people. all of our rights are god given not given to us by the government. kimberly a ban will not keep them out of criminals hands. take chicago and california for instance. they have the strictist gun control laws in the nation yet look at the gun violence.
God has NO say in our nations laws or Constitution.
An imaginary being cannot give you anything.
Your right,it won’t work as long as there are current laws in every state,it makes no difference if cities like Chicago have some of the toughest gun laws if they can go to a neighboring state and buy anything that want without background checks or any other form of common sense laws.If I were a criminal,which I am not, I could avoid all data base checks by walking into a gun show and coming out with an arsenal of guns if I wanted and of course criminals know this so where do you think they will go? I’m also wondering why ppl find it necessary to protect themselves with AR-15’s?Can you not protect your homes and families with hand guns or shot guns even?
This article is a joke, as is the person that wrote it. Libelous at best.
Unconstitutional, this is a court that rules on feelings and not facts. The 2nd amendment says rights to bear arms shall not be infringed, very simple to understand.
They can still buy pistols, or rifles or shotguns, the 2nd amendment doesn’t state that it gives every citizen the “Right” to own any weapon ever invented. Therefore they can still arm themselves, so your unconstitutional falls flat. We don’t allow the sale of things like grenade launchers, mortars, high level explosives either to the general public, because the general public has no need for them, same applies to assault weapons. Wanting something is not the same as need. Reagan signed an assault weapon ban for the entire country, at no point was it EVER considered Unconstitutional, then good old Shrub (George the clown Junior) let the ban expire, and here we are less then 10 years later with idiots murdering people all over the country using, wait for it, assault weapons, on an almost daily basis over the last year. 355 major attacks over 321 days. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one or few, or over the profits of assault weapon manufacturers, weapons of war serve little to no purpose in the hands of the general public.
Banning assault weapons is not the same as banning the right to bear arms. Nor
does it infringes on the right to bear arms !!! Even with the ban on assault weapons citizens can still arm themselves with other type of firearms which are allowed by the law. The state do have the authority to put a limit as to the type of weapons available to the public !!! What if someone wants a weapon with depleted uranium shells ??? It should definitely be not allowed !!!
the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to make sure the people can be as readily equipped as a common infantry soldier….yes, this excludes bazookas and tanks and uranium depleted shells, but it does not exclude a common semi-automatic rifle.
Your point is unproven !!! If the state can ban bazookas it can ban semi-automatic weapons !!! Or any weapon it may deem too dangerous for the general public !!!
that s an illegal ruling. it has no teeth.
Banning assault weapons is not the same as banning the right to bear arms. Even with the ban on assault weapons citizens can still arm themselves with other type of firearms which are allowed by the law. The state do have the authority to put a limit as to the type of weapons available to the public !!!