Most states have pre-emption similar to Texas. I believe even Illinois does, but some old court cases overruled it for these types of bans. I don't think you'll see it going much further.ErnieP wrote:This Decision I'm concerned will embolden a number of other anti communities to pass similar legislation, resulting in a hodgepodge of jurisdictions that will make it very dangerous to drive through a State and accidentally find oneself in violation. Just imagine if Austin tried this..... It would certainly complicate life.....and probably result in a lot of Austin Homes going up For Sale....
Search found 3 matches
Return to “U.S. Supreme Court rejects challenge to assault weapon ban”
- Fri Dec 11, 2015 7:45 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: U.S. Supreme Court rejects challenge to assault weapon ban
- Replies: 17
- Views: 3832
Re: U.S. Supreme Court rejects challenge to assault weapon ban
- Mon Dec 07, 2015 6:02 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: U.S. Supreme Court rejects challenge to assault weapon ban
- Replies: 17
- Views: 3832
Re: U.S. Supreme Court rejects challenge to assault weapon ban
We already "lost" when the 1994 Federal ban was upheld.maintenanceguy wrote:When they decide not to hear a case, they basically are deciding to let the lower court ruling stand. It may not be as strong as if they ruled in favor of the lower court after hearing the case but the certainly decided not to override the lower court. We lost.
- Mon Dec 07, 2015 4:59 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: U.S. Supreme Court rejects challenge to assault weapon ban
- Replies: 17
- Views: 3832
Re: U.S. Supreme Court rejects challenge to assault weapon ban
Charles L. Cotton wrote:To those who so fervently argue that "shall not be infringed" means that no restrictive laws are constitutional, I hope you will read this decision. As I've noted countless times in 35 years, our opinions about the Second Amendment do not matter. The opinions that matter are those held by at least 5 of 9 Supreme Court Justices.dhoobler wrote:http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-c ... QQjukzG.97
The next time you hear or read a complaint by the "all-or-nothing" crowd that the NRA and/or TSRA "compromise," consider both the source and how things work in the real world. Politics has correctly been described as the "art of the possible." Political and legislative success are the result of hard work by people and organizations who know what is possible, when to promote an issue, and not to overstate their position.
Chas.
I believe it to be beneficial that they didn't take the case...in that it's less of a "decision" than a "pass". It's a shame that one can't depend on the Supreme Court to interpret the plain meaning of the Constitution, but in the last 80 years or so they clearly haven't. So the incremental approach taken by NRA/TSRA is superior.
Let's remember that the States are important too. That's where NRA has made huge progress in the last 30 years with CC, "stand your ground", etc. It's also arguably where the Constitutionally permissible regulation of firearms belongs.
Interestingly though, isn't this the 7th circuit that upheld forcing Illinois to allow concealed carry statewide?