WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a challenge by gun rights activists to a Chicago suburb’s ordinance banning assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, handing a victory to gun control advocates amid a fierce debate over the nation’s firearms laws.
The 2013 ordinance passed by the city of Highland Park, Illinois will remain in place. By opting not to hear an appeal of a lower-court ruling that upheld the measure, the justices declined to take up what would have been a high-profile gun rights case following a succession of mass shootings including the one last week in San Bernardino, California.
Continue reading: Supreme Court rejects challenge to assault weapon ban
The Secular Jurist 
A win for the good guys.
LikeLike
A small one.
LikeLike
Indeed. “Small” is the reason the NRA exists. Freud would loved these ass-hats.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is it possible to have a nationwide referendum on gun control? Must this decision depend on the law makers, gun lobbyists and activists only?
LikeLike
The U.S. Constitution has no direct democracy provision such as a national referendum, although the states are allowed to amend it either by a super-majority of members in both houses of the U.S. Congress or by a super-majority of members in an impromptu national convention (which has never been used). Obviously, the bar in both cases is extremely high.
LikeLike
I hate high bars. Makes it too bloody hard to reach my glass of beer.
LikeLike
You ain’t just whistling “Dixie” my friend! I’m what some folks would refer to as “vertically challenged.” High bars SUCK!!! 🙂
LikeLike
😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have seen in the past where during elections issues are put to the vote, for example legislation on marijuana. Could this be put to the vote too?
LikeLike
Sure, at the state level. However, while young Americans eagerly vote for marijuana legalization, they don’t have much enthusiasm to vote for other issues like gun control.
LikeLike
That is sad my friend, very sad
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robert, I think the majority’s decision not to grant certiorari is based on the belief that the case is small potatoes and because they were unwilling to decide it on the grounds of the opinions of Thomas and Scalia, which were truly over-the-top. They argued that the constitution bans any prohibition of any weapon that can be used for a lawful purpose. (Since home defense is considered by the Court as a lawful purpose I don’t understand why plastic explosives or guns with spring triggers are not per se, both of which can protect a home’s perimeter. (Tactical nukes might be a stretch but I can even see the use in hunting, for example.)
Anyway, IMO, he nut-cutting time will come when they have to decide whether to review the decision in New York Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc. v. Cuomo, which upheld (most of) the NY and CT laws passed in the aftermath of Sandy Hook. If the Court takes up those two cases it will be open season (literally) on gun control advocates.
LikeLike
Agreed. In a reply to another comment, I referred to this win as a “small one.” Thanks very much for the excellent background information.
LikeLike