Dec 7, 2015

Supreme Court decides to keep letting cities ban assault weapons

The Supreme Court declined Monday to weigh in on whether cities and states can ban assault weapons, sidestepping a charged debate rekindled by a series of mass shootings around the country.
In refusing to take the case known as Friedman v. Highland Park, the court — at least for now — lets to stand a lower court's ruling in favor of the Illinois city's prohibition and, by extension, several similar bans in place in municipalities around the country.
The case stemmed from an ordinance Highland Park enacted in 2013 prohibiting residents from owning any assault weapons. Arie Friedman and the Illinois State Rifle Association challenged the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to uphold the ban.
The city’s ordinance defines an assault weapon as any semi‐automatic gun that can accept a large‐capacity magazine and has one of five other features: a pistol grip without a stock; a folding, telescoping, or thumbhole stock; a grip for the non‐trigger hand; a barrel shroud; or a muzzle brake or compensator. Some weapons, such as the AR‐15 and AK‐47, are prohibited by name.
Friedman and the National Rifle Association argued that the ordinance substantially restricts their options for armed self‐defense.
Highland Park contended that its ordinance was valid because weapons with large‐capacity magazines are dangerous and unusual. 
Supreme Court Justices Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissented from the court’s decision to reject the case, saying the court has recognized in past cases that the Second Amendment applies fully against the states as well as the federal government.

Justice Ginsberg says the 2nd amendment was NEVER to define rights to individuals...

IT was created to keep state MILITIAS...since the Young America couldn't afford an army.   READ ON

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg on the Second Amendment
"The Second Amendment has a preamble about the need for a militia...Historically, the new government had no money to pay for an army, so they relied on the state militias. And the states required men to have certain weapons and they specified in the law what weapons these people had to keep in their home so that when they were called to do service as militiamen, they would have them. That was the entire purpose of the Second Amendment."
But, Justice Ginsburg explains, "When we no longer need people to keep muskets in their home, then the Second Amendment has no function, its function is to enable the young nation to have people who will fight for it to have weapons that those soldiers will own. So I view the Second Amendment as rooted in the time totally allied to the need to support a militia. So...the Second Amendment is outdated in the sense that its function has become obsolete."
As for the Heller case, decided by the Court in 2008, Justice Ginsburg says, "If the Court had properly interpreted the Second Amendment, the Court would have said that amendment was very important when the nation was new; it gave a qualified right to keep and bear arms, but it was for one purpose only—and that was the purpose of having militiamen who were able to fight to preserve the nation."
Via @Linda Anne Brown

No comments: