Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Supreme Court (again) declined to take up a constitutional challenge to a (Connecticut) gun law passed in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.
The Connecticut law bans certain semi-automatic assault weapons and large capacity magazines.
The ruling also applied to an assault weapons ban in New York and other laws in other states.
I am sure that those who constantly argue about states rights, will do a 180 here, since it didn't go their way.
How does the court choose which cases they will hear.
Cases to Resolve a Conflict of Law
Cases when Lower Courts Disregard past Supreme Court decisions
The Court will Sometimes Hear Cases that Speak to the Justices' Interests
So I guess none of the justices felt this case was a conflict of law.
Even the late Justice Scalia would have agreed.
He 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."
The Supreme Court (again) declined to take up a constitutional challenge to a Connecticut gun law passed in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.
The Connecticut law bans certain semi-automatic assault weapons and large capacity magazines.
You expected different. 2 "wise latinas" and "I would prefer south africa" gindsburg.
The Supreme Court (again) declined to take up a constitutional challenge to a Connecticut gun law passed in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.
The Connecticut law bans certain semi-automatic assault weapons and large capacity magazines.
Good. Taking assault weapons off the shelves is a step in the right direction, but I would like to see a national ban. Current owners are allowed to keep their guns, but may not sell them privately in Connecticut.
The ban in Connecticut includes pistols.
Of course the question is always asked, "Do criminals care about these laws?", and the answer is "no, they don't. Criminals will do as they damn well please".
That's why semi-automatic weapons need to be removed from shelves in American stores and gun shows.
Connecticut is among the most permissive states in terms of carry permits, and I think that's the direction we need to go; let people carry weapons to defend themselves and their property but restrict nationwide what can be purchased by civilians.
We must recall that the good people of Connecticut are not being deprived of owning guns, but a subgroup of guns.
Other states have similar restrictions on these type of semi-automatic, high velocity, weapons, which the Federal appellate courts have consistently refused to strike down in challenges.
I guess that the Courts believe that, if there are 100 types of 'guns' available on the market, and some 10 (let us say) are 'banned', those interested in owning guns still have 90 types of guns available to purchase for hunting, target shooting, and self defense. It is not a Second Amendment right to own every type of gun imaginable. Recall that fully automatic weapons (machine guns) are still banned.
I did enjoy an interview on a local radio station the other day: the personality (whom does sports, but likes to get some politics involved) was interviewing some person about his argument about the necessity of being able to own the AR-15 and such.
Said person talked about the benefits of the semi-automatic rifle versus the 'single bolt' action, stating that if one is out hunting for deer with a single-bolt rifle, and shoots at, and misses, a deer, then 'that hunter will not get a second shot, and he will be unable to provide food for his family that day'.
Now, I believe that there are still some hearty souls, mainly in the wilderness of Alaska, that do indeed depend on getting that deer or moose for food. However, in this modern time (and especially in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, where the interview was done) there are few families in that situation. It was a rather nonsensical argument. If I were to go out to hunt a deer, and miss, I would stop by the store on the way home and so provide for my family.
I also saw, on television, an interview with a person that maintained that it was his right to own such a weapon so he could go out to the target range and shoot at targets.
I will say that if the 'assault rifle' ban was again placed (as it was for some years), I could easily see an exception being made for owners of target ranges. They could legally own such weapons and, for a fee, a customer could rent the weapon and proceed to shoot at the paper target.
Of course, I understand the concerns of some. One friend of mine, years ago (for we have lost contact with each other) owned several such weapons, for he was convinced that, uh, 'darkies' (not the word he used) would rise up, and I guess travel to his neighborhood, and riot outside his house. Of course, even if such a ban was introduced in Congress (which I doubt anytime soon, even if Hillary Rodham Clinton were president), he would still be allowed to keep those weapons he already owns.
Good. Taking assault weapons off the shelves is a step in the right direction, but I would like to see a national ban. Current owners are allowed to keep their guns, but may not sell them privately in Connecticut.
The ban in Connecticut includes pistols.
Of course the question is always asked, "Do criminals care about these laws?", and the answer is "no, they don't. Criminals will do as they damn well please".
That's why semi-automatic weapons need to be removed from shelves in American stores and gun shows.
Connecticut is among the most permissive states in terms of carry permits, and I think that's the direction we need to go; let people carry weapons to defend themselves and their property but restrict nationwide what can be purchased by civilians.
Fire away
Yes
cause 150 million currently won't end up in a bad guy's hands.
There is nothing hypocritical here for those who support state rights. State rights are suppose to cover what is not in the Constitution. The Constitution clearly allows the people to own arms to defend themselves.
The complete lack of critical thinking skills among the gun control crowd is quite stunning. As if thugs, felons, terrorists, etc., who have NO problem violating laws to commit their crimes will suddenly be law-abiding persons when it comes to gun control laws.
Narcotics are controlled. How has that worked out? Have the drug dealers been eliminated? The addicts? ODs? No to all of the above. Guess why? They're completely ignoring narcotics control laws.
In fact, ODs cause more deaths than firearms.
Really good chart breaking down cause of deaths in the U.S.:
Good. Taking assault weapons off the shelves is a step in the right direction, but I would like to see a national ban. Current owners are allowed to keep their guns, but may not sell them privately in Connecticut.
The ban in Connecticut includes pistols.
Of course the question is always asked, "Do criminals care about these laws?", and the answer is "no, they don't. Criminals will do as they damn well please".
That's why semi-automatic weapons need to be removed from shelves in American stores and gun shows.
Connecticut is among the most permissive states in terms of carry permits, and I think that's the direction we need to go; let people carry weapons to defend themselves and their property but restrict nationwide what can be purchased by civilians.
Fire away
the term 'reasonable people' keeps coming to mind when I hear the gun debates on tv, in conversation or on public forums.
I think 'reasonable people' would agree that a private citizen does not really need an automatic rifle for hunting. Many hunters do not even use a semi-automatic rifle even though it is legal.
The sticking point is always home defense. I personally do not think private citizens really need fully automatic, high round capacity rifles but there are plenty of people out there who do think they AT LEAST should have access to them even they don't need them.
I have heard the argument 'when the government comes to take......whatever' --- I'll need my guns. Well guess what folks -- if the government 'comes to take' they will 'get' and you won't be able to stop them no matter how many guns you have locked and loaded
There is nothing hypocritical here for those who support state rights. State rights are suppose to cover what is not in the Constitution. The Constitution clearly allows the people to own arms to defend themselves.
Thank you. Seems some don't understand that.
One of the reasons the NY/CT ban doesn't make sense from a legal precedent standpoint is that it's already been stated by the Supreme Court that you can't ban guns in "common use". I'd like to know why 150 (or so) million isn't considered common?
Edited to add: not sure if I'm happy they denied cert, or not. On one hand, it leaves residents of these states with the bans intact. On the other, at least they're not deciding to issue a ban at the Federal level, which is what some of the justices clearly want.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Good. Taking assault weapons off the shelves is a step in the right direction, but I would like to see a national ban. Current owners are allowed to keep their guns, but may not sell them privately in Connecticut. 
