A small victory for gun control advocates

[Landslide Lyndon]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/08/us/supreme-court-will-not-hear-challenge-to-assault-weapons-ban-of-highland-park-ill.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share&_r=0

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear a Second Amendment challenge to a Chicago suburb’s ordinance that banned semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.

The decision not to hear the case has no precedential force, but was nonetheless part of a series of signals from the Supreme Court giving at least tacit approval to even quite strict gun control laws in states and localities that choose to enact them.

“The justices don’t reveal their reasons for denying review, but one thing is clear,” said Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. “The justices certainly aren’t eager to take up a Second Amendment case these days.”

“One has to wonder,” he said, “if the Supreme Court is having second thoughts about the Second Amendment.”

[Mr. Reactionary]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/08/us/supreme-court-will-not-hear-challenge-to-assault-weapons-ban-of-highland-park-ill.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share&_r=0
“One has to wonder,” he said, “if the Supreme Court is having second thoughts about the Second Amendment.”

Wait ... what? SCOTUS refuses to hear thousands of cases per year. The fact that they didn't take this one case on a type restriction somehow signals that the Court is going to reinterpret an entire Amendment? Winkler is a joke.

[Vosem]

Yeah, it's humanly impossible for the Supreme Court to take every case that gets appealed to them, so the overwhelming majority of cases they end up refusing to hear. The Roberts court has been the most pro-gun rights court in American history (considering the Heller and MacDonald decisions). So, yeah, this means basically nothing.

[Landslide Lyndon]

If any of you jokers actually reads the article then you'll see that Scalia and Thomas actually disagree with you and made a big fuss about the court refusing to hear this case.

[Mr. Reactionary]

If any of you jokers actually reads the article then you'll see that Scalia and Thomas actually disagree with you and made a big fuss about the court refusing to hear this case.

You need 4 votes for cert. 2 squawks is a trifle. And I say that as someone who would have liked them to resolve the issue. The Evenwel case that SCOTUS hear oral arguments on earlier today addresses a legal question which came as a cert petition before the Court 15 years ago. Thomas really wanted it heard back then, but cert was denied. 15 years later, they heard a better case for the same question. Just because Scalia and Thomas wanted this particular case heard, that has no bearing on the Court's future intent or the likelihood of a future challenge. I mean, how many months went by before SCOTUS accepted a gay marriage case post-Hollingsworth? They were content to let the Circuits sort it out first. Probably the same thing here. Waiting means more assault weapons will be purchased overall, making them more common and more likely to be protected when a different case is eventually heard.

[MK]

I sense the court wants to sit on the sidelines on this one for now because had they ruled (which would be in favor of pro gun) it would strike down all the other little "assult weapon" bans in the liberal sanctuarys    Let the locals sort it out 1st... we've seen this with SSM.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Scalia and Thomas might've been looking forward to striking it down but that just means at least 2/3 of the remaining pro-gun justices didn't consider it worth taking. Why that is can't be discerned yet.