Chicago / Highland Park and SCOTUS

[MTregre]

I did a search and came up empty on the topic (sorry if its a failure on my end)

I read today that SCOTUS is set to hear the appeal to Chicago/Highland Park's ban of semi-auto weapons. I haven't been able to find any opinions or discussions on it, even here, and was interested in more information or example cases to give us an idea of how this may go in the courtroom.

I haven't found a case number yet or anything else besides the City name regarding the ban. Either I'm missing a search function or there is simply that little available on it.

Mike

 

[infringed]

You can find more about the case here: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/friedman-v-city-of-highland-park/

For scholarly legal analysis, you should probably read the amicus curiae from the supporting and dissenting parties. They are available on the SCOTUSBlog link above.

There are also a few websites with commentary:

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/10/supreme-court-doesnt-act-yet-on-new-gun-control-case/
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...off-a-literal-arms-race-in-the-united-states/
http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/...-does-that-put-it-under-the-second-amendment/

 

[Emperor]

The court refused to hear this appeal. That means the ruling from the Circuit court is upheld. This could have a chilling effect across the country. At least in places where America hating dummies are the ruling class.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justic...effectively-upheld-a-local-assault-weapon-ban

Essentially, the USSC is saying that Semi-auto (rapid fire<Their words), AR's and Similar style guns with large capacity magazines are not reasonable weapons covered under the 2nd Amendment.

Many years ago I predicted that the US would one day be divided into enclaves or municipalities of like minded people. In this example, a city; say, where America lovers flock to en masse because they are tried of having their beliefs and freedoms suppressed by morons that are clueless. Like Highland Park, Illinois. Then they control the government (also with like minded people), to ensure they keep their beliefs and freedoms in tact. This is where it begins.

On a grander scale over time, the enclaves are states of the Union. Quite frankly, I am good with that.

There is very clear delineation forming of who in this country is against who. The most glaring example of that, is anyone that would vote for Hillary Clinton. Now on it's face, that is just a shallow argument, but if you look at the body of work and the history of her actions. The lying, the scandalous behavior, the pandering to gain power at any costs. There is no way a moderately intelligent person could put that criminal in the White House unless they were so stupid, and/or so ideologically corrupted they were a threat to the American way of life. Yet, look at the poll numbers! 20-30% of the US population of people who identify themselves as democrats (it more BTW), are voting for her regardless of who else is running in her party, regardless of who her opponent may be, and regardless of all the crap she is involved in that has gone horribly wrong in this country, abroad, and the criminal behavior and blatant dishonesty.

You folks think about that!

 

[DAVE_M]

Sort of off topic, but it's funny when they say AR's are more dangerous, because they are semi-automatic.
I know of guys that shoot faster with a lever action, than with a mil-spec AR. Ever saw the SASS shooters? lol

 

[Emperor]

Sort of off topic, but it's funny when they say AR's are more dangerous, because they are semi-automatic.
I know of guys that shoot faster with a lever action, than with a mil-spec AR. Ever saw the SASS shooters? lol

Interpretations are what matters to the courts. As I am sure you know. And, interpretations are opinions that in the judicial system, are ONLY supposed to be formulated with facts of the matter WHILE strictly adhering to the principles of the Constitution; AND using precedent cases of similar questions as a quick guide. Unfortunately, the opinions are usually formulated with ideological leanings.

I have seen enough USSC decisions come down in the last 10-12 years to confidently state that the right leaning Justices form opinions most often the way it was intended. Conversely, the 4 left leaning dummies are almost always forming their opinions based on ideology.

Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayer, and Breyer are hack zombies for the phony's. I cannot cite a single landmark style decision where they have voted against the left, regardless of fact.

This quote sums up the mindset of the left leaning judicial here in the US:

"A ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines might not prevent shootings in Highland Park (where they are already rare), but it may reduce the carnage if a mass shooting occurs," wrote Judge Frank H. Easterbrook in the Seventh Circuit’s majority opinion.

He added: "If a ban on semiautomatic guns and large-capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that’s a substantial benefit."

Admits won't do **** to stop it, but as long as "the public" feels safer!

God, Heaven, or Someone, help us!

 

[Boudin]

Conservative justices Thomas and Scalia voted with the majority to not hear the case so no new gun laws would be made or precidents set. It seems even the gun control advocates are missing this.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk