U.S. Supreme Court Sidesteps Gun Debate, Rejects Two Appeals

[Eugene]

Source: Bloomberg

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected two appeals challenging California gun regulations, steering clear of the debate over firearm restrictions following last week’s mass shooting at a Florida high school.

The justices left intact California’s 10-day waiting period for gun purchases, turning away arguments that the policy violates the rights of people whose background checks take less time. The court also rejected a National Rifle Association appeal and let California keep using fees paid on firearm transfers to help fund efforts to track down people who acquire guns illegally.

Both appeals were filed well before the Feb. 14 shooting, which left 17 dead and more than a dozen wounded at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to expand or reinforce constitutional gun rights in recent years. In November, the court left intact Maryland’s prohibition on semiautomatic assault weapons and Florida’s ban on openly carrying handguns in public.

-snip-

By Greg Stohr
February 20, 2018, 9:33 AM EST Updated on February 20, 2018, 10:15 AM EST


Read more: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-20/u-s-supreme-court-won-t-question-waiting-period-for-gun-buyers

[harun]

1. Seems more like they are encouraging states to implement their own restrictions more

than doing sidestepping.

[iluvtennis]

4. +++ Agree.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

5. They are waiting till another Justice is appointed

Speculation in legal circles is both sides are waiting for Kennedy to be replaced. He is the the swing vote on this, and neither side want to risk setting precedent at this point until they know which way it will go, and with Kennedy, no one knows. The Liberal justices don't trust him on guns due to him siding with the right on Heller and MacDonald, and the conservative justices don't trust him because there is the all but confirmed rumor that Scalia had to make concessions in Heller to keep Kennedy on board. It only takes 4 votes to grant Certiori, both sides have 4 to take it on, and neither wish to at this point.

[Stallion]

2. In Other Words, The SCOTUS Is Allowing the States to Regulate Gun Sales

despite all this nonsense from Gun-Nutters that the 2nd Amendment grants an absolute right to purchase and carry guns. See Scalia in Heller Decision

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

[malthaussen]

3. That's a misleading headline, IMO.

But clearly, the USSC doesn't want to get involved.

-- Mal

[Brainstormy]

6. so is

"refused to expand or reinforce constitutional gun rights in recent years." Not just misleading, but a dead giveaway in terms of the objectivity of the reporting.

[melm00se]

7. This says to me

that the USSC will only get involved when federal, state and/or local regulations create a de facto ban on firearms (akin to the McDonald decision). Anything short of that is perfectly fine in the court's eyes.