in effect the Supreme Court is allowing State laws that restrict some types of firearms and magazine capacities to stand... I don't know brothers... I'm getting a bad feeling about where this will lead.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I bet if a state decided to not enforce the nfa laws, they would hear the case.
i see it as the exact oppositeI don't think this is all bad. Maybe Roberts said no to hearing it because without Scalia there was a higher chance that the 2A would lose at the SCOTUS and we can have another run at it when there are 9 justices.
By not granting cert they are letting each individual circuit court's decision stand. Thus, even if a state decide to ban "assault weapons" the circuit court in the area can strike down the law as unconstitutional since there is no Supreme Court ruling on it.
This is certainly a better outcome than having the 2nd circuit's ruling upheld by the SCOTUS because then it applies nationwide.
(Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer)
i see it as the exact opposite
if that had gone to the supreme court the pro gun camp would win on constitutional grounds, or should rather.
the federal government has repeatedly stepped on the state's and local governments dicks in the past for not conforming to supposed rights that are constitutionally granted......so why is the exact opposite true with firearms?
This is the most solid comment I've heard on here in a while! Well said sir!This is why local city, county, and state elections are just as important as federal ones.