US Supreme Court Refuses to hear gun ban appeal

This is why we need to elect a pro Second Amendment president. The next one will have a few chances to put in some new bodies in the Court.
 
So they can refuse to hear a case based on a law by a city that claims that its citizens would "feel Better" by not having assault rifles. So what about cities setting up the same type of law against Possible Muslim terrorists? How would the Supreme Court rule on that one?
 
they get 100+ case requests a year. they can handle maybe 10 or so, so no, they don't take everything that comes their way.

and when they do hear a case, that doesn't mean that they're going to make a correct ruling. history is full of examples.
 
Originally Posted By: Stu Farishthey get 100+ case requests a year. they can handle maybe 10 or so, so no, they don't take everything that comes their way.

and when they do hear a case, that doesn't mean that they're going to make a correct ruling. history is full of examples.


They handle approximately 75-80 cases each year out of the 10,000+ cases that are requested for review
 
Last edited:
ok, I got the scale wrong. still works the same. they can't take all of them & there is no means by which to make them take any particular one, they choose.
 
I would contend that the lower courts didn't follow precedent, and by creating the ban, and keeping it, was already against the courts ruling, with the DC case.

Libs are going to keep creating these kinds of things and as long as they keep wining office, they will do it. People that have guns and want to keep them at all should step up and take their heads out of the sand..

Voting has consequences. Gun owners voting for Democrats are just morons with their heads in the sand.
 
as a practical matter, we're in the best position to solve this legislatively than we have been during my life. the GOP holds 2/3 of the governors office,s & they hold 66 of 99 legislative houses nationally & the trend has been increasing, not decreasing.
 
This is probably for the best. Until or unless we have more strict constructionists on the court, I'm reluctant to have them hear any case that could impact my civil rights.
 
Originally Posted By: Stu Farishthe only thing it really means is that they decided to not hear the case.


Stu, But that means that the bans on AR15 rifles in those cities near Chicago stands and those people can't buy anymore AR15 or have them in their homes in those cities.

To me this is akin to the British making it illegal in the colonies to have a long rifle or a musket on their persons or in their homes. I see no difference other than the more than 200 years that separates those times in this country. I see it as the beginning of the end.

Today the AR15 is nothing more than a long rifle that we used for hunting and protection back in 1776 when this country was first founded.

To me the founding fathers knew what it was like to be oppressed by a foreign government and never wanted that to happen again. People in England thousands of miles away were deciding how much tax the colonies should pay the KING. And they used force of arms to get away from the King of England's control. So they put the 2nd amendment into our US constitution to make sure that the people would be armed and stay arms to prevent the government from doing what the King of England did to them. That's how I see it.

Obama and Clinton would be smart to back off this gun control thing and start arresting those that use gun's illegally in a crime.

The other day a women used a vehicle (car) to run over scores of people on a sidewalk in Las Vegas. They arrested her of course. But you don't see Obama or Hillary calling on Detroit to stop making cars.
 
I thought that there was a 5 to 4 majority of conservatives on the supreme court now? I'm wondering which one's voted to take the case and which didn't? I was thinking that only 4 of the nine had to vote affirmative in order for the entire court to take a case. Maybe I'm wrong on that.

Now we have two Muslim terrorist coming to America and getting two AR15 from another terrorist friend and shooting up a bunch of people being the reason that the Supreme Court decided to allow these bans on AR15 to stand by what the Appeals Court decided. This only opens the flood gates for Obama and others to start passing local laws that ban AR15 and to me that is like striking down the 2nd Amendment the easy way. They didn't have to get all the States to agree to change the 2nd amendment and get all the votes necessary to do that. They simply just read the 2nd amendment differently and forget that the words shall not be infringed is there. That's one way to skin a cat that I didn't think of nor did our founding fathers.
 
The more the Dems go after our guns the more GOP candidates get into office. Maybe you are right. But I still get sick when I see the 9 justices on the US Supreme Court who can't read the dam constitution right. I mean this 2nd amendment is pretty simple and straight forward. Remember that a militia in the 1770s in the Colonies was a bunch of rag tag colonies (farmers) who banded together using the modern weapons of the times and started a revolution. And I think that they were afraid of their own government that they had just fought to form and wanted a way to prevent this new government from ever becoming like the old English Government that has betrayed them. To me the founding fathers wanted us to be armed so that we could fight if necessary again.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Stu Farishthe only thing it really means is that they decided to not hear the case.


Sorry but it's more than that.

By not hearing the case it means they LET STAND a lower courts ruling. The lower court ruled that those towns COULD BAN THOSE FIREARMS.

In other words they AGREED with the lower court by letting the lower court's ruling stand.

What this does is open the door for ALL cities and towns to have their own bans.

Anytime they do not hear the case and let the lower courts ruling stand then it effects everyone of us. Take a guy on death row, by refusing to hear his case they allow the state to execute him.
 
People in those areas are funding our enemies with their tax monies. If they CARE about gun rights, they should move to a gun right's supporting state. If they do not so move, what does that tell you? when somebody gives money to your enemy, what do you call that someone?
 
Back
Top