Supreme Court won’t review laws banning assault weapons
By
Robert Barnes
December 7
The Supreme Court declined Monday to review whether
cities and states can prohibit semiautomatic, high-capacity
assault weapons, which have been used in some of the
nation’s most deadly recent mass shootings.
In turning away a case from a Chicago suburb, the
justices decided they would not pass judgment on a kind of
weapons ban that is also in place in seven states.
The decision was a disappointment for gun rights
advocates, who have been unable to persuade the justices to
take a case that might amplify and extend the court’s 2008
decision that the Second Amendment provides the right for an
individual to keep a weapon in the home.
The case rejected by the justices involves a ban imposed
by Highland Park, Ill. It prohibits AR-15s and AK-47s, and
defined as assault weapons semiautomatic guns that have
high-capacity magazines. Seven states — Maryland,
California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey
and New York — have similar bans.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia wrote that
the court should review the ban because it “flouts” the
court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence. They criticized
lower court decisions that have allowed jurisdictions to
impose what Thomas called “categorical bans on firearms that
millions of Americans commonly own for lawful purposes.”
The court’s action Monday continues a pattern. After
recognizing the individual right for the first time in
District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, the court made
clear in a subsequent case that state and local governments,
like Congress, could not prohibit individual gun ownership.
But since then, the justices have avoided all cases that
might clarify whether that right is more expansive or which
restrictions are too burdensome.
Monday’s announcement that the court would not review the
Highland Park case comes at a time of national revulsion
over mass shootings, most recently in San Bernardino, Calif.
But there is a hot political debate about how to confront
the problem.
President Obama and leading Democrats have called for
additional gun control; in his address to the nation Sunday
night, Obama said Congress should make it harder to sell
what he called “powerful assault weapons.” Republican
presidential candidates have shown their support for gun
rights with events at shooting ranges and rejection of any
suggestion of new laws.
Gun rights advocates say that even the term “assault
weapons” is propaganda, and that cities and states continue
to put unreasonable restrictions on the gun ownership right
recognized by the court.
But the justices have yet to find a case they think
requires their intervention.
Supreme Court won’t review laws banning assault
weapons
The Supreme Court declined Monday to
review whether cities and states can
prohibit semiautomatic, high-capacity
assault weapons, which have been used in
some of the nation’s most deadly recent
mass shootings.
In turning away a case from a Chicago
suburb, the justices decided they would
not pass judgment on a kind of weapons
ban that is also in place in seven
states.
The decision was a disappointment for
gun rights advocates, who have been
unable to persuade the justices to take
a case that might amplify and extend the
court’s 2008 decision that the Second
Amendment provides the right for an
individual to keep a weapon in the home.
The case rejected by the justices
involves a ban imposed by Highland Park,
Ill. It prohibits AR-15s and AK-47s, and
defined as assault weapons semiautomatic
guns that have high-capacity magazines.
Seven states — Maryland, California,
Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New
Jersey and New York — have similar bans.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin
Scalia wrote that the court should
review the ban because it “flouts” the
court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence.
They criticized lower court decisions
that have allowed jurisdictions to
impose what Thomas called “categorical
bans on firearms that millions of
Americans commonly own for lawful
purposes.”
[How
the gun lobby outsmarted itself and
brought about its Supreme Court defeat
Monday]
The court’s action Monday continues a
pattern. After recognizing the
individual right for the first time in
District of Columbia v. Heller in
2008, the court made clear in a
subsequent case that state and local
governments, like Congress, could not
prohibit individual gun ownership.
But since then, the justices have
avoided all cases that might clarify
whether that right is more expansive or
which restrictions are too burdensome.
Monday’s announcement that the court
would not review the Highland Park case
comes at a time of national revulsion
over mass shootings, most recently in
San Bernardino, Calif. But there is a
hot political debate about how to
confront the problem.
President Obama and leading Democrats
have called for additional gun control;
in his address to the nation Sunday
night, Obama said Congress should make
it harder to sell what he called
“powerful assault weapons.” Republican
presidential candidates have shown their
support for gun rights with events at
shooting ranges and rejection of any
suggestion of new laws.
Gun rights advocates say that even
the term “assault weapons” is
propaganda, and that cities and states
continue to put unreasonable
restrictions on the gun ownership right
recognized by the court.
But the justices have yet to find a
case they think requires their
intervention.
Play Video1:22
5 guns that changed history
In light of fierce debate
about smart-gun technology and the future of
firearms, the Post's Michael S. Rosenwald compiled a
brief list of iconic guns that have changed the
world. (Jason Aldag, Gillian Brockell, Davin Coburn
and Kate Tobey/The Washington Post)
The justices have been privately debating the Highland
Park case for months. As is its custom, the court did not
say why it found the case unworthy of review, and it is
important to remember that such decisions are not rulings on
the merits of the case.
One possible explanation for the court declining to take
the case is that there is no disagreement among lower courts
about the legal justification for the firearms bans. Such
splits are the most common reason the court accepts a case.
It also could be that the court is closely divided on the
issue and that neither side is confident how a pivotal
member — most likely Justice Anthony M. Kennedy — would vote
if forced to make a choice.
What is clear is that Thomas and Scalia were unable to
persuade the other conservatives who formed the Heller
majority to take the new case.
By its inaction, the court has left in place lower court
rulings that allow restrictions on carrying a weapon outside
the home, among other things, and on the kinds of guns that
can be prohibited.
“By rejecting this case, today the Supreme Court sided with
a community that has taken action to protect itself from the
type of violence we’ve seen in San Bernardino, on college
campuses and in movie theaters,” said Dan Gross, president
of the Brady Center and Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
The decision that the Supreme Court chose not to review
came from a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the 7th Circuit. That ruling noted a statement in the
Heller decision that said legislatures retained the
ability to prohibit “dangerous and unusual” weapons, and
Judge Frank Easterbrook said the guns named by Highland Park
qualified.
“Why else are they the weapons of choice in mass
shootings?” he wrote. He said a ban may not prevent mass
shootings “but it may reduce the carnage if a mass shooting
occurs.”
Gun rights advocates and 24 states had asked the Supreme
Court to get involved, because the bans violated the intent
of Heller.
They said the bans include “some of the most commonplace
firearms in the nation, including the immensely popular
AR-15, which is the best-selling rifle type in the United
States,” said the brief from Arie Friedman of Highland Park
and the Illinois State Rifle Association.
Thomas and Scalia agreed with that. “The overwhelming
majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for
lawful purposes, including self-defense and target
shooting,” Thomas wrote. “Under our precedents, that is all
that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second
Amendment to keep such weapons.”
The case is Friedman v. Highland Park.
Robert Barnes has been a Washington Post reporter and editor
since 1987. He has covered the Supreme Court since November
2006.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-wont-review-laws-banning-so-called-assault-weapons/2015/12/07/b562678e-96fb-11e5-94f0-9eeaff906ef3_story.html