The Supreme Court announced Monday it had declined to hear two Second Amendment cases, leaving intact gun control laws in Maryland that restrict the types of weapons that can be bought, and in Florida that largely prevent gun owners from carrying their weapons in the open.
The justices denied both cases without comment, leaving in place lower-court rulings upholding the two laws.
Eric Friday, who represented gun owners in the Florida case, said he thought the court’s Second Amendment supporters were making a strategic decision in refusing to hear the cases, keeping their powder dry for later, when they may have more support on the high court.
“This fight for the Second Amendment is not a short-term fight, this is a long-term fight,” Mr. Friday told The Washington Times. “We are not going to quit just because the Supreme Court didn’t take two cases.”
The Florida case involved a challenge to the state’s ban on open carry, which extends to even those licensed to carry a concealed weapon.
Dale Norman challenged the law after he was arrested and fined for brandishing his firearm holster, which was visible while he was walking down the street. He argued prohibiting open carry violated his constitutional rights, but the Florida Supreme Court sided with the state.
In the Maryland case, gun owners had challenged the state’s ban on some semiautomatic rifles and large-capacity ammunition magazines. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected those complaints, saying the Second Amendment doesn’t protect military-style gear.
“Put simply we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war,” wrote Circuit Judge Robert B. King in the opinion.
Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh said the Supreme Court’s decision not to review his state’s “common-sense law” confirms all states have the right to protect their citizens from “weapons of war.”
“Assault weapons, which have resulted in the slaughter of hundreds of people in recent months, are not protected by the Second Amendment. The Firearm Safety Act remains the law in Maryland,” Mr. Frosh said.
But the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action said the Supreme Court had previously ruled common-use firearms are protected by the Second Amendment and shouldn’t be banned outright.
“Maryland’s ban on commonly owned firearms and magazines violates our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense,” the organization said in a statement Monday afternoon.
The justices also announced Monday they won’t hear a challenge to a Texas school district’s practice of opening school board meetings with student-led prayer.
The American Humanist Association, a progressive organization, appealed to the high court after the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Birdville Independent School District in March, saying the prayers didn’t violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.
The justices refused to hear the association’s appeal, so the appeals court ruling, which said the school district’s practice didn’t coerce students to pray, remains in place.
“The presence of students at board meetings does not transform this into a school-prayer case,” the lower court’s opinion read.
Another case the justices declined to review was out of Mississippi, where an African-American lawyer argued the Confederate battle flag in the corner of Mississippi’s state flag violated the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. The lower court said the lawyer did not have standing to bring the lawsuit.
The justices did not give a reason for declining to take any of the cases.
© Copyright (c) 2017 News World Communications, Inc.
—-
This content is published through a licensing agreement with Acquire Media using its NewsEdge technology.
Join the discussion
Anthony Kennedy, please retire so Trump can put a real conservative on the Supreme Court. Shame on you, George W. Bush for putting John Roberts on the Court!
Roberts is certainly NOT apolitical as justices should be. We can expect that from Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor, but to have a Chief Justice who is often swayed by political wind is horrific.
Already known for years that Roberts is not apolitical — proven by his loopholing h0hellth (by claiming it to be a tax) from 2009 till now…
We can only hope that maybe Ginsburg reaches room temperature some time soon and that we don’t get a Sessions in her place.
I still believe that “Associate Justice Cruz” has an outstanding ring to it.
Someone should be checking Ginzberg hourly for signs of life.
Yet more cowardice from the libtards on the bench. I THOUGHT appointing Gorsuch would change this..
The second amendment was pointedly ABOUT weapons of war. The amendment was so that the people could bring their own arms to fight invaders and protect their lands. That is what the militia is for, nothing less.
Last i checked, ANY FIREARM from a 22 derrenger to a 30.06 rifle is A WEAPON OF WAR..
“Put simply we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war,” wrote Circuit Judge Robert B. King in the opinion.
“The second amendment was pointedly ABOUT weapons of war. The amendment was so that the people could bring their own arms to fight invaders and protect their lands. That is what the militia is for, nothing less.”
And afford the people the ability to resist a tyrannical government!
Bingo!
Isn’t it amazing that after 44 years, liberals claim that abortion is “settled law” and should never be challenged….but after over 200 years and numerous previous Supreme Court decisions, liberals still think the Second Amendment is up for debate.
The Second Amendment is the ONLY right to which the Founding Fathers felt the phrase “shall not be infringed” was needed…and yet the Second Amendment is the ONLY right which is subject to the laws of 50 several states.
Tell me how gay marriage, which is not addressed in the Constitution, can be forced to be recognized by all of the states, but yet a gun permit or license is only valid in the state it is issued? As it stands now, there is no equal protection under the law. If the standard is that someone has a license which must be recognized for marriage, then you can not logically claim that the same is not true regarding gun rights.
There is NOTHING in the Constitution which states that any right is to be set aside as somehow being different or less in stature from any other right. This is especially true since the gun rights are specifically addressed in the Constitution, but marriage is not.
The only way one can make such an argument is to ignore the intents and purposes of the Constitution on its face. That is exactly what liberals do.
Well argued and written. Kudos.
Add to that, WHY IS IT the 2nd amendement is the ONLY LEGAL RIGHT one is guaranteed by the constitution, one is beholden to a Sheriff in many cases, before one can PRACTICE??
DO you need to get a permit to speak publicly? Go vote? Get a lawyer?? NO.
Apparently, I have been reading the Second Amendment all wrong. It must say “shall not be infringed unless it has to do with a scary looking black rifle”
I just need to read the Constitution with ballistic grade rose-colored glasses, from the saddle of my unicorn.
There really is only 1 reason to have the SCOTUS hear these cases and that is to “shoot them down” as unconstitutional. However, there is already precedent on all of this:
* Maranda v. Ariz. 384 U.S.: “Where rights as secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which will abrogate them.” Maranda v. Ariz. 384 U.S.
* Sherer V. Cullen, 481 F 946 “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights”
* Shuttlesworth V. City of Birmingham Alabama, 373 US 262 “If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.”
* City of Chicago V. Collins, 51 N.E. 907, 910 “…those things which are considered as inalienable rights which all citizens possess cannot be licensed since those acts are not held to be a privilege.”
* Miller V US 230 Fed 486, 489 “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional (guaranteed) right cannot be converted into a crime.”
* Murdock V. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105 “No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefore.”
In other words, NONE of these “so called laws” have ANY affect on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms! The problem is that NONE of the “officers of the court” want to attack these cases from the proper standpoint. So, we get this kind of idiocy!
[In other words, NONE of these “so called laws” have ANY affect on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms! The problem is that NONE of the “officers of the court” want to attack these cases from the proper standpoint. So, we get this kind of idiocy]
Then all those officers of the “Law” who refuse to UPHOLD that law, need to be stripped of their rank and badge and FIRED.
The Militia, as referred to in the 2nd Amendment, was “Every Able Bodied Citizen” who was expected to always be “at the ready” to defend the country from invasion (from within or without).!