« 72 Dept of Homeland Security staff on "terrorist watch list" | Main | Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog »
Cert. denied in Friedman v. Highland Park, dissent by Thomas and Scalia
Opinion here. The dissent begins after p. 11 of the orders.
A dissent from denial has no precedential value, though it can be cited for whatever strength its reasoning holds. It does serve as a signal (here, by two Justices, one of whom authored Heller) that there are two votes for cert. in a good case raising 2A issues (tho it also signals that the reasons given in this case were insufficient to attract enough votes to grant cert.). It can also signal lower court judges who want to rule in accord with the dissent that there is support for that view on high.
Sentencing Law and Policy blog has some thoughts.
10 Comments | Leave a comment
I really can't believe they might be wanting to wait for circuit split on this. NRA/SAF or this guy David Hardy, should file a lawsuit immediately in other circuits (I think SAF has the ball rolling here) to get this in front of the court.
I think the only circuits that have bans like this are 9th, 2nd, 3rd...not sure.
There are even some machine gun lawsuits in progress, so hell, maybe they will strike those down and then we can finally say hell has frozen over.
As I recall, one of the motivating statements from the challenged 7th circuit opinion was more or less as follows: "Even if the highland park ban doesn't decrease likelihood of mass shootings, it may very well still help residents to "feel safer" from the threat of such shootings."
To the extent that "making people feel better" passes anything more than rational basis scrutiny (and likely not that), I am stunned that such an opinion was allowed to stand by any justice, regardless where they fall out on the question.
Online I found the text of the Highland Park ordinance banning so-called "assault weapons".
The ban is so broadly defined it even bans the Ruger Mini-14 and the Marlin Model 60 tube-fed .22 rimfire rifle.
How many cities have bans like the Highland Park possession ban?
I know San Francisco and Los Angeles bans possession of magazines, but which cities ban possession of so-called "assault weapons"?
It's clear now that even in the SCOTUS, the dictates of ideology trumps the Constitution.
Oh wait...it has always been that way...at least with Progressives.
Rochester, NY
Oh wait...it has always been that way...at least with Progressives.
And RINOs like Roberts.
Thanks for the tip. We can also note that Washington D.C. has such a ban too.
Apparently the number of cities in Illinois which have this ban is pretty horrible.
Chicago has banned the possession of certain semi-automatic firearms that it defines as assault weapons, as well as long gun magazines that can hold more than 15 rounds of ammunition.[
Cook County has banned the possession of certain semi-automatic firearms that it has defined as assault weapons, and magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
The possession of firearms that have been variously defined as assault weapons is also illegal in Lincolnwood, Skokie, Evanston, Highland Park, North Chicago, Melrose Park, Riverdale, Dolton, Hazel Crest, Homewood, and the part of Buffalo Grove that's in Cook County.
When you said after Heller that this was going to be a long fight, and we'd have setbacks, possibly serious ones, I was hoping you were wrong. But boy were you right.