- 2 hours ago
- US & Canada
Getty Images
The US Supreme Court has refused to take up a case brought by gun owners challenging an Illinois city's ban on so-called assault weapons.
The decision leaves in place a lower court ruling that allows local governments some leeway in regulating the high-powered weapons.
Two conservative justices said that they would have heard the case, and had they done so, struck down the ban.
The decision comes days after mass shootings in California and Colorado.
The city of Highland Park, a suburb of Chicago, passed a law that bans semi-automatic weapons and large-capacity magazines in 2013. A federal appeals court upheld that law in a ruling that was challenged by an Illinois gun owners association.
The high court has considered taking on the case for two months, and a delay in deciding whether to take it on seems to be because Justice Clarence Thomas was finishing his opinion.
He and Justice Antonin Scalia said the federal appeals court's ruling "flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents".
AP
In the opinion, Mr Thomas did not mention any mass shootings that involved semi-automatic weapons, and said the Chicago-area ban "is highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semi-automatic firearms used for lawful purposes" by about five million US citizens.
Similar laws in Connecticut and New York were upheld by a New York federal appeals court in October.
In all, seven states plus Washington DC have passed laws that ban the weapons.
Since two landmark rulings that ensured the right to own a handgun to defend one's home, the Supreme Court has regularly turned away challenges to gun laws.
It is sad that U.S. citizens are being revoked of their right to bear arms. If the supreme court usually waives these problems what is so different with this situation? Legal documents specifically give citizens of the United States the right to own weapons. If some states are banning guns, they are taking away a right given to them. We as citizens should petition to have these laws set in place revoked.
ReplyDeleteJessica Earle Per.2
I totally agree. We were given the right to bear arms and if the government is banning "high-powered weapons" and "large-capacity magazines" they are slowly getting rid of our rights and in the process becoming more corrupt. The Government taking away the right to own high-powered weapons and large capacity magazines shows that they don't trust the people and if they don't trust us why should we trust them?
DeleteIn today's society, with all the terrorism occurring right now,our country needs to limit the types of guns sold. Our attempts at increasing gun control have not worked yet. If our attempts to try to prohibit unstable people from getting guns are failing we need to restrict the types of guns sold. In most cases people claim that without guns they cannot defend themselves. "Since two landmark rulings that ensured the right to own a handgun to defend one's home, the Supreme Court has regularly turned away challenges to gun laws"(BBC News). It is evident by this quote the supreme quote ensured the ability to own a handgun. To defend oneself what more is needed than a handgun? Anything more is overkill and puts the public in danger.
ReplyDeleteAmar Dhillon Period 2
I agree with Amar, our country should ban certain guns. I believe it is to easy for terrorist to get guns that should be illegel to sell. They can use these guns to kill inocent people.
DeleteI think that it is unfair that U.S. citizens are losing their right to own guns. We legally have the right to own guns and it is not the gun that hurts it is the people using the gun. A suburb in Chicago called Highland Park " passed a law that bans semi-automatic weapons and large-capacity magazines" (BBC News). It is sad that these people no longer have the right to own certain guns. I think that even if guns are band people will find them and use them.
ReplyDeleteKaci Pebley
Period 2
I think that it is really unfortunate that US citizens have to lose their rights to guns, but at this point it is kind of necessary for safety reasons. "The decision comes days after mass shootings in California and Colorado." kind of proves a point that this decision should have been made a long time ago. It should have been made a long time ago due to the fact that many lives have been lost because of guns.
ReplyDeleteAubrey Koenigs
Period 6