An Opening for States to Restrict Guns

[SecularMotion]

To listen to the insistent harangues of many gun-rights advocates, one might imagine that the Second Amendment prohibits almost any regulation of firearms.

Fortunately, a majority of the Supreme Court disagrees. On Monday, the court declined to hear a challenge to a Chicago suburb’s law banning semiautomatic assault weapons and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

The town of Highland Park, Ill., passed the 2013 ordinance, which bans categories of weapons as well as specific guns by name, including the AR-15 and the AK-47, in the wake of the massacre of 26 children and educators at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn. The shooter in that attack, like those in many mass shootings, used a semiautomatic assault rifle with a high-capacity magazine.

It was the 70th time since 2008 that the Supreme Court has declined to consider a lawsuit challenging a federal, state or local gun regulation. This creates a big opportunity for Americans to put pressure on their state and local leaders, especially since Congress refuses to approve even uncontroversial measures like universal background checks for gun sales, which are supported by nearly nine in 10 Americans. Until that changes, states and cities have the constitutional authority and moral obligation to protect the public from the scourge of gun violence.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/opinion/an-opening-for-states-to-restrict-guns.html

[ileus]

1. Hopefully the people can let the "state" know fu is the answer to it's plan.

[MohRokTah]

2. I believe you have interpreted this incorrectly.

It's more of an opening for cities and counties to restrict some gun ownership.

The SCOTUS has been more willing to give latitude the more local the government is For example, the courts forced Illinois as a whole to loosen up the statewide restrictions and Illinois was given a deadline to comply.

Whereas, in this case, a city government was given much broader latitude when compared to what the courts gave the state in which that municipality is located.

[jmg257]

4. See NY & CT. Their AW bans have been upheld using Heller/2 as their guide...

While the bans may be against the 2nd 'common legal use', when the court consdered the level of scrutiny, it allowed them to stand.

[MohRokTah]

5. The so-called bans did not actually ban the weapons

Hence the sale of CA, NY, and CT versions of the weapons, which is how they got around the 1930 standard of common legal use.

In fact, the weapons used in San Bernardino were sold in CA in compliance with all CA laws.

[DonP]

3. Pretty much irrelevant to states with preemption

SCOTUS has turned it back to the states for now and if a state has preemption, the municipalities can't have a law that is stricter than the state's laws. Unless the states are willing to cancel preemption, but that opens a whole other can of worms.

I don't know how many other states have it, but Illinois, Florida and California do.