Bad news for the 2nd Amendment

[Aguila Blanca]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...apons-ban-intact-n475421?cid=par-sy-juno-gen4

The SCOTUS has declined to hear an appeal of the decision allowing Chicago to ban "assault weapons." That's bad enough, but I'll make a wild guess that this pretty much kills any hope that New York or Connecticut pro-gun people can get their respective anti-gun laws before the SCOTUS, as well.

I found it interesting the Justices Scalia and Thomas felt the SCOTUS should have taken the case. I agree. As if we needed further proof that we cannot let a Democrat win the White House in 2016. If we get a Democrat, the Supreme Court will be stacked against the 2nd Amendment for a generation -- at least.

 

[kilimanjaro]

Don't be so nonchalant about it, SCOTUS does not like to overturn it's own decisions, unless your name is Dred Scott. Once the court gets packed by the left and the 2nd Amendment is collective, it's gone forever.

Elections have consequences.

The gun grabbers will chip away all they can, but if we lose just one time nationally, it's over. It's not coming back. Turn them all in, Mr. and Mrs. America, as Senator Boxer would say.

There won't be any comeback a generation later.

 

[Kimio]

I'm concerned about the elections. I don't like any of the candidates, but by and large, I fear, like previous elections, there simply won't be enough people who give a darn that will come out and vote.

Trump is literally shooting himself in the foot time and time again (I don't like him at all) and I fear we may end up losing to the likes of Hilary or Sanders at this rate.

 

[TXAZ]

If the president and congress aren't going to follow the law, and SCOTUS won't take cases that seem to be related to violations of the constitution, then it makes you wonder how many sheeple it takes to relinquish all rights. Are we there yet?

 

[kilimanjaro]

I think we may have to hold our nose and vote. We know what will happen if the left gets another term.

Just allowing them to appoint the next two SCOTUS Justices should be enough to get any gun owner to the polls.

Elections have consequences.

 

[Andy Blozinski]

I was really surprised at the the result. It gives municipalities interpretation of constitutional issues if used as a precedent for something else.

 

[thallub]

The SCOTUS has declined to hear an appeal of the decision allowing Chicago to ban "assault weapons."

The case is Friedman vs City of Highland Park.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/08/u...lt-weapons-ban-of-highland-park-ill.html?_r=0

SCOTUS requires the concurrence of four justices in order to grant cert. They kicked this case down the road five or six times.

Justices may have been reluctant to sign on because the court would have upheld the law by a vote of 5-4.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

We have similar thread - Local Bans are good to go.

So I''m closing this one so we have only one.