quote:

Top court spurns challenge to Maryland assault weapons ban
Andrew Chung

5 Min Read

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court, which has avoided major gun cases for seven years, on Monday declined to hear a challenge backed by the National Rifle Association to Maryland’s 2013 state ban on assault weapons enacted after a Connecticut school massacre.
U.S. Supreme Court is seen in Washington, U.S., November 27, 2017. The Court, which has avoided major gun cases for seven years, on Monday declined to hear a challenge backed by the National Rifle Association to Maryland's 2013 state ban on assault weapons enacted after a Connecticut school massacre. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas

The court turned away an appeal by several Maryland residents, firearms dealers and the state NRA association, who argued that the ban violated their right to keep and bear arms under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment.

The justices sidestepped the roiling national debate over the availability of military-style guns to the public.

The case focused on weapons that have become a recurring feature in U.S. mass shootings including the Nov. 5 attack at a Texas church that killed 26 people, the Oct. 1 attack at a Las Vegas concert that killed 58 people, and the 2012 massacre of 20 schoolchildren and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, which prompted Maryland’s law.

Assault weapons are popular among gun enthusiasts.

The challengers, who had sued Maryland’s governor and other officials in 2013, appealed a February ruling by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia that upheld the state’s law. The 4th Circuit, ruling 10-4, said it had no power to extend constitutional protections to “weapons of war.”

Maryland’s ban outlaws “assault long guns,” mostly semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15 and AK-47, as well as large-capacity magazines, which prevent the need for frequent reloading.

Backed by the influential NRA gun lobby, the plaintiffs said in a court filing that semi-automatic rifles are in common use and that law-abiding citizens should not be deprived of them.

“The sands are always shifting with the Supreme Court,” Democratic Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh said. “I hope that this means they have reached a conclusion that they are not going to fiddle with assault weapons bans across the country.”

The Supreme Court last year left in place assault weapon bans in New York and Connecticut.

https://www.reuters.com/articl...ns-ban-idUSKBN1DR1SE

quote:

The 4th Circuit, ruling 10-4, said it had no power to extend constitutional protections to “weapons of war.”

quote:

The 4th Circuit, ruling 10-4, said it had no power to extend constitutional protections to “weapons of war.”

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
Was the rejection a ruling of the full court? Which justices were for and against the rejection?

quote:

The Certiorari Act of 1925 gives the Court the discretion to decide whether or not to do so. In a petition for a writ of certiorari, a party asks the Court to review its case. The Supreme Court agrees to hear about 100-150 of the more than 7,000 cases that it is asked to review each year.

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:

quote:

The 4th Circuit, ruling 10-4, said it had no power to extend constitutional protections to “weapons of war.”

quote:

Originally posted by BurtonRW:
I'm not entirely broken up about this.

Remember - Gorsuch only replaced Scalia. We're still at a 4/4 split with no telling which way the swing vote will go (or who it will be for that matter).

It could have been a spectacular victory - or an equally spectacular loss at this point, particularly following Vegas.

-Rob

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
Personally I don't think the Supremes will be touching the second any time soon, if ever again. Too political. Maybe if there are a few more conservative (or liberal) judges, but not at the current makeup. Think they are content to leave it at the state level.

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:
[QUOTE]The 4th Circuit, ruling 10-4, said it had no power to extend constitutional protections to “weapons of war.”

quote:

Originally posted by c1steve:
Right now the court is 4-4, plus Kennedy. Ginsburg is 84, Breyer is 79. All we need is Ginsburg to pass away or fall asleep too often, then the Supreme Court will come back and align better with the US Constitution. Soon it will be 5-4 or 6-3 in our favor.