SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Supreme Court, All Right or All Wrong?
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
From: TimF12/8/2015 7:04:22 PM
   of 3029
 
SCOTUS Refuses to Hear 2nd Amendment 'Assault Weapons' Case, Clarence Thomas Files Sharp Dissent
Justice Thomas faults his colleagues for "relegating the Second Amendment to a second-class right."
Damon Root
Dec. 7, 2015 10:37 am

The U.S. Supreme Court refused today to hear a major Second Amendment case out of Illinois which asked whether a city's ban on "assault weapons" violates the U.S. Constitution. By refusing to hear the case, the Court has allowed a lower court decision upholding the gun ban to stand. Writing in dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, faulted the other justices for giving their blessings to a lower court decision "that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents" and "eviscerates many of the protections recognized in Heller and McDonald."

At issue in Friedman v. City of Highland Park is that Illinois city's ban on the sale and possession of "assault weapons" and of gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. The city's regulations were upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, which deemed such gun bans permissible under the Second Amendment. A majority of the Supreme Court today allowed that 7th Circuit decision to survive. Only Justices Thomas and Scalia spoke out in opposition.

"I would grant certiorari to prevent the Seventh Circuit from relegating the Second Amendment to a second-class right," Thomas wrote today. In his view, the city's regulation is "highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.... The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting.... Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons."

Thomas was also dismissive of the 7th Circuit's claim that the "assault weapons" ban "may increase the public's sense of safety," which that court deemed "a substantial benefit" of the city's actions. But as Thomas pointed out, "If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing."

Justice Thomas' dissent from denial of certiorari in Friedman v. Highland Park is available here.

reason.com
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News