Supreme Court Won’t Hear Challenge to Assault Weapons Ban in Chicago Suburb

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear a Second Amendment challenge to an Illinois ordinance that banned semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. As is their custom, the justices gave no reason for turning down the appeal in the case, Friedman v. City of Highland Park, No. 15-133, which comes at a time when the national debate on gun control has been reignited by terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, Calif.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissented, saying that lower courts have been ignoring Supreme Court precedents on Second Amendment rights. The ordinance, enacted in 2013, banned some weapons by name, including AR-15s and AK-47s. More generally, it prohibited possession of what it called assault weapons, defining them as semiautomatic guns that can accept large-capacity magazines and have features like a grip for the nontrigger hand. Large-capacity magazines, the ordinance said, are those that can accept more than 10 rounds.

In 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court struck down a federal law that banned keeping handguns at home for self-defense, finding for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to bear arms. In 2010, the court extended the principle to state and local governments. Since then, the court has turned away appeals in any number of Second Amendment challenges to gun control laws.

LINK

To those for banning and/or controlling guns needs to not forget that owning a gun is a right not a privilege..... something our Muslim president is attempting to change.

What is sad is that Highland Park is one of the nicer Chicago suburbs. They don't have an issue with gun violence, much less anyone using AR style rifles. I don't even get what the point of the law is in the first place.

originally posted by: DeathSlayer

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear a Second Amendment challenge to an Illinois ordinance that banned semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. As is their custom, the justices gave no reason for turning down the appeal in the case, Friedman v. City of Highland Park, No. 15-133, which comes at a time when the national debate on gun control has been reignited by terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, Calif.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissented, saying that lower courts have been ignoring Supreme Court precedents on Second Amendment rights. The ordinance, enacted in 2013, banned some weapons by name, including AR-15s and AK-47s. More generally, it prohibited possession of what it called assault weapons, defining them as semiautomatic guns that can accept large-capacity magazines and have features like a grip for the nontrigger hand. Large-capacity magazines, the ordinance said, are those that can accept more than 10 rounds.

In 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court struck down a federal law that banned keeping handguns at home for self-defense, finding for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to bear arms. In 2010, the court extended the principle to state and local governments. Since then, the court has turned away appeals in any number of Second Amendment challenges to gun control laws.

LINK

To those for banning and/or controlling guns needs to not forget that owning a gun is a right not a privilege..... something our Muslim president is attempting to change.

Although I do believe that Obama has been placating and being entirely too soft on this threat, I dont think I would venture to say hes muslim, lol honestly I dont think hes dedicated enough to pray that often (gigglesnort)

That being said

I think all laws and regulations being presented from EITHER side deserve to be heard

When you shut down, the conversation you do a disservice to all discourse.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

It's interesting that you took that opportunity to throw that snipe in about Obama being a Muslim since Muslim culture (especially in the Middle East) celebrates gun ownership just as much as we do.

I remember driving through Baghdad once while deployed to Iraq and hearing all this gun fire all of a sudden. I turned to my Sgt and asked if we were going to do anything and he was like, "nah it's just some birthday party. They are all shooting guns in the air."

a reply to: DeathSlayer

from OP article

"Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissented, saying that lower courts have been ignoring Supreme Court precedents on Second Amendment rights."

Who said "you have a republic if you can keep it"????

a reply to: DeathSlayer
Illinois is one of the most anti-gun states in the country. Yet the southern part of the state probably has enough guns to supply everyone in the whole state with a weapon and 500 rounds. Much to the chagrin of Chicago politicians. Fortunately, the state capitol is Springfield, not Chi-town.

a reply to: Klassified

Ironically enough, as I was perusing the news feeds a few minutes ago, I saw that there were four people killed and 24 wounded in shootings over the weekend in Chicago.

Gun ban seems to be working out pretty well!

a reply to: Shamrock6

This is why I hate assault rifle bans or the rhetoric that goes along with it. It's handguns that are used for more homicides and gun slayings than assault rifles. If the anti-gun people wanted to be serious about this issue, they'd go after handguns and not assault rifles. This discrepancy alone makes me disagree with most of their rhetoric on the matter.

This is a terrible decision by the Supreme Court. No matter your position on the 'Assault Weapons Ban,' I think the vast majority of us would agree that the American people deserve to have this issue heard in front of the highest court in the land.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Shamrock6

This is why I hate assault rifle bans or the rhetoric that goes along with it. It's handguns that are used for more homicides and gun slayings than assault rifles. If the anti-gun people wanted to be serious about this issue, they'd go after handguns and not assault rifles. This discrepancy alone makes me disagree with most of their rhetoric on the matter.

Ding. Ding. We have a winner.

Anytime gun control debate comes up and the gun grabbers start talking about assault style weapons, you know they are being disingenuous. They'd have much more credibility by just admitting AR style guns are barely used in the commission of criminal acts.

a reply to: Edumakated

You're absolutely right. Funny thing is, the whole gun control movement started out as an anti-handgun campaign some decades ago. The problem occurred in the 70s and 80s as handguns went mainstream and public opinion shifted overwhelmingly from being supportive of a handgun ban to strongly against it. Knowing this, they abandoned the issue, and instead shifted focus in the 90s to 'assault weapons', which they saw as a niche market and a 'low hanging fruit' of sorts. And it worked, they got their ban, for a time. Problem is, the same type of shift in public opinion and popularity of ownership that happened with handguns is happening with 'assault rifles' now, too. That's the reason they're desperate to get it done now before they lose the issue totally, though I'd argue that they already have.

I guess they want to limit gang banger to ten rounds...

Here is the question of the day. How many people can a person kill with 30 round mags compared to 10 round mags? The answer is the same amount of people. I can have a vest with 20 ten round mags in it or 7 30 round mags, the few seconds it takes to change mags makes this all stupid. If the number of rounds was important then no one would buy a .45 since those crappy guns can only have 7 rounds..lol

a reply to: Xtrozero

I can change mags fast and I bet you can too. The gang banger just brings multiple guns. These laws are being pushed by people who have no idea what they are talking about.

originally posted by: Edumakated

Anytime gun control debate comes up and the gun grabbers start talking about assault style weapons, you know they are being disingenuous. They'd have much more credibility by just admitting AR style guns are barely used in the commission of criminal acts.

Dude close to 300 per year! How can we have such a high murder rate go on without banning! I say we ban cheap ass pistols and that would reduce the 5000 murders that gang banger do a good amount. lol

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: Xtrozero

I can change mags fast and I bet you can too. The gang banger just brings multiple guns. These laws are being pushed by people who have no idea what they are talking about.

About 3 seconds, so I'm not super fast.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Neither is anybody else. 3 seconds is good. Only people that I know are faster are speed shooting competitors.

Neither is anybody else. 3 seconds is good. Only people that I know are faster are speed shooting competitors.

28 years in the military helps hehe

What weapon can put the most projectiles down range in the least amount of time.

A Assault Weapon or a shotgun.

A Mossberg 500 can hold 8 rounds of 00 buck and that = 72 projectiles

#2 Buck = 112 projectiles bigger in dia,.27" then a .223 down range in less time than you could put range with a AR.

Yet there are fewer people wanting to ban shotguns.

AR style guns are barely used in the commission of criminal acts.

Except all the mass shootings where they kill a bunch of people- like the one that just happened in California.