Legal Supreme Court declines to hear gun-control challenges (Text)

[USMC06RET]

Supreme Court declines to hear gun-control challenges

The article: ScotusBlog

The text of the article:

After considering them at 15 consecutive conferences, the Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up two challenges to gun-control laws in Maryland and Rhode Island. In each case, three justices indicated that they would have granted the petition for review, leaving the challengers one vote short of the four needed for the court to hear oral arguments and weigh in on the merits of their case.

In Snope v. Brown, the court declined to decide whether Maryland’s ban on semiautomatic rifles, such as the AR-15 and the AK-47, violates the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms. Nine other states and the District of Columbia have similar bans.

The Maryland legislature enacted the law in 2013, in the wake of the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Ct., in which a gunman killed 20 first graders and six adults. The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit rejected a challenge to the law in 2017.

But the full court of appeals agreed to consider the new challenge in 2024, less than two years after the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. In Bruen, the justices struck down New York’s concealed-carry law, holding that courts should only uphold gun restrictions in the future if there is a tradition of such regulations in U.S. history.

In an opinion by Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, who was reportedly on the shortlist to fill the vacancy created by the death of then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist during the George W. Bush administration, the full 4th Circuit rejected the new challenge.

The majority first concluded that assault weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms at all “because, in essence, they are military-style weapons designed for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense.”

But even if the Second Amendment does protect the right to have assault rifles, Wilkinson continued, the law is still constitutional because it “fits comfortably within our nation’s tradition of firearms regulation. It is,” he wrote, “but another example of a state regulating excessively dangerous weapons once their incompatibility with a lawful and safe society becomes apparent, while nonetheless preserving avenues for armed self-defense.”

Judge Julius Richardson dissented from the court’s decision, joined by four other judges – Paul Niemayer, G. Steven Agee, A. Marvin Quattlebaum, and Allison Jones Rushing. Stressing that the “Second Amendment is not a second-class right subject to the whimsical discretion of federal judges,” Richardson argued that the assault weapons barred by the law are “indisputably” covered by the Second Amendment. And although Richardson acknowledged that “history and tradition support the banning of weapons that are both dangerous and unusual,” he concluded that the ban was nonetheless unconstitutional because the Maryland law “prohibits the possession of arms commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”

The challengers came to the Supreme Court last summer, asking the justices to take up their case. They stress that assault rifles like the AR-15 “are the best-selling rifles in the country. They are owned by millions of Americans and have accounted for approximately 20% of all firearm sales in the country for over a decade.” And if the 4th Circuit’s decision is allowed to stand, they cautioned, then states could place restrictions on virtually any gun in the country except for handguns.

The state urged the justices to leave the 4th Circuit’s ruling in place. Nearly two decades ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, they noted, the justices struck down a District of Columbia law that generally banned the possession of handguns. In that decision, the state stressed, the Supreme Court “left no doubt that ‘weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned.’” But in any event, the state continued, there is no reason for the justices to weigh in on this dispute now, when only one other court of appeals has even considered the question. 5,000 character limit reached, click here for MORE

 

[Malibu]

For some videos on this, see my posts from earlier this morning.
WGL & Mark Smith offer insight.

 

[USMC06RET]

For some videos on this, see my posts from earlier this morning.
WGL & Mark Smith offer insight.

Pretty sure the bottom line is that both laws stand as is. No AR or AK "style" possession in Maryland (and currently nine other states) and in Rhode Island, no detachable magazines of more than ten rounds capacity in semi-automatic weapons. Just to put it in a nutshell.

 

[Malibu]

Pretty sure the bottom line is that both laws stand as is. No AR or AK "style" possession in Maryland (and currently nine other states) and in Rhode Island, no detachable magazines of more than ten rounds capacity in semi-automatic weapons. Just to put it in a nutshell.

Yes, I have no reason to doubt the above.
My main concern is what the California state legislature will attempt to do in the near future. I believe that today’s refusals by SCOTUS will give them the green light to start crafting a confiscation law. Enforcement actions can start as soon as it becomes effective; Democrats may know that whatever they do may in fact be in some way unconstitutional, however they also know that the whole appellate industry moves very slowly. This will buy them plenty of time, and the 9th circus can be counted on to help them out. That’s just my two cents, so it isn’t worth much.

 

[SomeOne]

Make no mistake, SCOTUS impotence give CA a free reign to ban whatever they want to ban. Roberts and Barrett routinely disappoint.

 

[adrkwan]

Was surprised Kavanaugh kicked the can down the road....

 

[ZeroFoxGiven]

SCOTUS has disappointed me for many of many years. At least when the Dems/ Libs had the majority my disappointments and expecting to be disappointed at every turn made sense.

 

[Malibu]

Was surprised Kavanaugh kicked the can down the road....

After his lame performance, I’m not so bothered by the treatment he suffered during the confirmation process. I used to have respect for the court; now I have none. They are a bunch of gutless eunuchs.

 

[adrkwan]

After his lame performance, I’m not so bothered by the treatment he suffered during the confirmation process. I used to have respect for the court; now I have none. They are a bunch of gutless eunuchs.

True, can only hope they're waiting for a better case to take.

 

[Malibu]

True, can only hope they're waiting for a better case to take.

Better?…They could have heard the cases, and issued rulings large enough in scope to cover a lot of what we have wanted for decades. But no, the Eunuchs have chickened out, causing us to wait for at the very least another few years, if not decades. However, the Eunuchs can rule any way they want, but these blue states and their puppets in the lower courts do whatever, because there is no enforcement.

 

[SomeOne]

We clearly have four votes. What will get us the fifth vote? I can't tell. But clearly Roberts and Barrett don't give a f... We knew Barrett's 2A stance was rather uncertain, while Robert started a flip-flop after Kennedy's retirement.

 

[ZeroFoxGiven]

The 2nd Amendment is very clear. Our forefathers intentions and stances regarding 2a are historically documented and clear.

What F’n else do these bozos need.

 

[USMC06RET]

The 2nd Amendment is very clear. Our forefathers intentions and stances regarding 2a are historically documented and clear.

What F’n else do these bozos need.

This country is going to be arguing over the meaning of the 2nd until such time as an authoritarian regime nullifies the constitution and subjugates all the people.

Short of that, keep in mind that SCOTUS has become a highly political institution (unfortunately) and that the reversal of monumental decisions such as Roe v. Wade will become more and more common. Bottom line is, I wouldn't interpret any decision as being cast in stone for all eternity (or for as long as our democratic republic survives).

 

[SomeOne]

The 2nd Amendment is very clear. Our forefathers intentions and stances regarding 2a are historically documented and clear.

What F’n else do these bozos need.

It can't be clearer. Yet, they fail to admit that.

 

[treelogger]

Better?…They could have heard the cases, and issued rulings large enough in scope to cover a lot of what we have wanted for decades.

First, it is not clear that what "we have wanted for decades" is either what the Supreme Court wants, or what the 2A really means. Or to put it differently: the court may not want to issue a ruling that is large in scope on these particular cases; they may want to use a scalpel rather than an axe.

Second, the court can only take 70-80 cases per year (footnote below). This means they have to be very picky on what cases they take, and balance among cases to allow making a lot of legal impact efficiently and with the correct breadth. Perhaps the two just rejected weren't suitable for their vision.

(Footnote: The US has one of the most laughably undersized supreme or constitutional courts among developed nations. If you scale up how many cases SCOTUS hears and how many justices it has, from other countries that have a functioning legal system, you find that it should have about 150-200 justices, and decide roughly a thousand cases per year. This is particularly important in the US, where a lot of the legal system relies on precedent instead of black-letter law, and with the presence of 51 legal systems (federal + the states) and a dozen appeals circuits, which are not precedential with respect to each other. Obviously, that would mean multiple chambers, and probably a specialization into criminal/civil/administrative/tax/consitutional departments. There are lots of good examples in other places how to organize this, but the US political system is too broken and hidebound to make progress on this front.)

We clearly have four votes.

Three and a half to hear the cases, not four. And remember, justices can change their views once full briefs are filed, and the case heard. Given the current makeup of the court, the gun rights community should probably be happy that no 2A cases are being heard.

The 2nd Amendment is very clear.

The text of the 2A is not very clear at all. The intentions of the people who codified and ratified it are secondary to the black letter of the text anyway.

The 2A means exactly that the courts say it does, no more and no less. This is one of the most important principles of a society based on the rule of law, perhaps the central one. The US got lucky that this principle got enshrined early and clearly in Marbury v. Madison. So today the 2A means pretty much what Heller and Bruen+Rahimi say. Before that, for about 60 years, the main interpretation of it was in Miller. You may like that, or you may not; but unless you are one of the 9 justices, or empowered to replace them, your (or my) opinions and preferences matter little.

 

[DB>)>]

Since several recent SCOTUS decisions (by INACTION, really) suggest that "free speech" is what the courts decide you are allowed to say/do, we should not be surprised that there is an assault on the RIGHT to defend onself against those who might consider to do us harm.... or compromise our freedoms, whether individually or collectively. We are perhaps rapidly approaching the situation proscribed by the Declaaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."


Given some of the current "enforcements", one could argue King Gerge was a piker in comparison to some of today's freedom hating government officials....

 

[SomeOne]

Three and a half to hear the cases, not four. And remember, justices can change their views once full briefs are filed, and the case heard. Given the current makeup of the court, the gun rights community should probably be happy that no 2A cases are being heard.

We have solid four. Kavanaugh is known for this 2A support. However, if he voted yes, the final decision could be less than favorable for us. He realized that, and strategically moved the goal posts. I respect that.

 

[Buncheong]

Make no mistake, SCOTUS impotence give CA a free reign to ban whatever they want to ban. Roberts and Barrett routinely disappoint.

This ^

Also, Roberts and Barrett are compromised. It's obvious.

 

[Dvrjon]

After his lame performance, I’m not so bothered by the treatment he suffered during the confirmation process. I used to have respect for the court; now I have none. They are a bunch of gutless eunuchs.

Just as a matter of language usage, the Supreme Court has four members who cannot, by definition, be "eunuchs".

We return you to your normal programming.

 

[Ro-bo]

The supreme court walked back the strongest aspect of Bruen in the Rahimi decision. Because of that, the lower courts have had no problem accepting as historical precedent, general laws from any period that even peripherally touch on regulating so-called dangerous weapons. The "not trapped in amber" refrain has been applied to the extreme. We'll continue to be stuck in the mud if and until the high court clarifies Bruen for a third time. The reluctance to take cases which would force that issue head-on (like the numerous AWB/magazine bans) is a signal of limited support. Thomas is the only sure bet.