TexasCHLforum.com

Oops. I thought they rejected the ban!

Beiruty, how is this good news?

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a challenge by gun rights activists to a Chicago suburb's ordinance banning assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, handing a victory to gun control advocates amid a fierce debate over the nation's firearms laws.

Ouch..so SCOTUS refusing to step in and decide on an ordinance.

Thats going to give way to other suburbs trying the same thing know SCOTUS isn't getting involved

Yup most definitely bad news.

The good news is that we live in Texas. No worries here.

I am sure the thugs in that Illinois city will follow the law...not.

dlh

baldeagle wrote:Beiruty, how is this good news?

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a challenge by gun rights activists to a Chicago suburb's ordinance banning assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, handing a victory to gun control advocates amid a fierce debate over the nation's firearms laws.

It COULD be good news. This court has (repeatedly) swung to the left a few times recently. I'd rather have NO decision from this court than a BAD decision. No decision isolates this ban to a small area of the country. A bad decision can change the law of the land.

To quote Charles Cotton, "Never ask a court, unless you have no alternative."

Then again, after 8 years of President Cruz, the court might look a bit different.

dhoobler wrote:http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-c ... QQjukzG.97

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.

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. Oh yes, experience and credibility are also critical ingredients in the recipe for success.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

dhoobler wrote:http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-c ... QQjukzG.97

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.

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?

So just paint all of your guns pink.

I'm cynical but I can't help but think given the timing that a message is being sent to clear the way for a national ban on semi-automatic weapons. Essentially the court is saying it will allow such a ban by a 7 to 2 margin. I'm not particularly reassured by a Republican Congress given how assiduously they've proved they can't be trusted. Part of me is saying it's not going to happen while another part is urging suspicion.

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.

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.

We already "lost" when the 1994 Federal ban was upheld.

The justices who are on our side may have decided that they could not count upon the vote of the swing votes. So they put it off, hoping for a better day. The SCOTUS does not like to rule against a prior ruling.

hovercat wrote:The justices who are on our side may have decided that they could not count upon the vote of the swing votes. So they put it off, hoping for a better day. The SCOTUS does not like to rule against a prior ruling.

Chas.