Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.6.2
Site Design by Sekimori

« 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

Posted by David Hardy · 7 December 2015 09:39 AM

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

Sebastian | December 7, 2015 1:55 PM | Reply

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.

Anonymous | December 7, 2015 3:37 PM | Reply

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.

Carl from Chicago | December 8, 2015 12:01 PM | Reply

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.

Brad | December 9, 2015 12:43 AM | Reply

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.

Brad | December 9, 2015 1:54 AM | Reply

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"?

rspock | December 9, 2015 8:05 AM | Reply

It's clear now that even in the SCOTUS, the dictates of ideology trumps the Constitution.

rspock | December 9, 2015 8:21 AM | Reply

Oh wait...it has always been that way...at least with Progressives.

Mark-1 replied to comment from Brad | December 10, 2015 2:43 PM | Reply

Rochester, NY

Richard | December 10, 2015 6:10 PM | Reply

Oh wait...it has always been that way...at least with Progressives.

And RINOs like Roberts.

Brad replied to comment from Mark-1 | December 10, 2015 8:39 PM | Reply

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.

Leave a comment