AW ban in IL ok because it makes people feel better...

[jgalt]

SCOTUS refused to take up an appeal from the 7th Circuit that upheld an "assault weapons" ban in a suburb of Chicago. Here's a quote from the original decision.

If it has no other effect, Highland Park's ordinance may increase the public's sense of safety... If a ban on semiautomatic guns and large-capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that's a substantial benefit.

From Justice Thomas' dissent (joined by - only! - Scalia):

"If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing."

Commentary from Reason.com:

SCOTUS Refuses to Hear 2nd Amendment 'Assault Weapons' Case, Clarence Thomas Files Sharp Dissent
Justice Thomas faults his colleagues for "relegating the Second Amendment to a second-class right."
Damon Root|Dec. 7, 2015 10:37 am

The U.S. Supreme Court refused today to hear a major Second Amendment case out of Illinois which asked whether a city's ban on "assault weapons" violates the U.S. Constitution. By refusing to hear the case, the Court has allowed a lower court decision upholding the gun ban to stand. Writing in dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, faulted the other justices for giving their blessings to a lower court decision "that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents" and "eviscerates many of the protections recognized in Heller and McDonald."

At issue in Friedman v. City of Highland Park is that Illinois city's ban on the sale and possession of "assault weapons" and of gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. The city's regulations were upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, which deemed such gun bans permissible under the Second Amendment. A majority of the Supreme Court today allowed that 7th Circuit decision to survive. Only Justices Thomas and Scalia spoke out in opposition.

"I would grant certiorari to prevent the Seventh Circuit from relegating the Second Amendment to a second-class right," Thomas wrote today. In his view, the city's regulation is "highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.... The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting.... Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons."

Thomas was also dismissive of the 7th Circuit's claim that the "assault weapons" ban "may increase the public's sense of safety," which that court deemed "a substantial benefit" of the city's actions. But as Thomas pointed out, "If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing."

Justice Thomas' dissent from denial of certiorari in Friedman v. Highland Park is available here.

Source - https://reason.com/blog/2015/12/07/scot ... ndment-ass

[jgalt]

If we replace just a few words from the 7th Circuit's ruling...

If it has no other effect, Highland Park's ordinance may increase the public's sense of safety... If a ban on semiautomatic guns and large-capacity magazines Muslims reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that's a substantial benefit.

...then I guess Trump's proposal to ban all Muslim immigration is Constitutional as well, right? At least in the states under the thumb of the 7th Circuit. And they will of course follow the principles set out in their own precedents ... won't they?

[Bearcatrp]

Can this ruling let other cities start banning as in Illinois?

[Rotary12]

Can this ruling let other cities start banning as in Illinois?

Depends on the states laws. In Minnesota that would not happen as the state laws are preemptive.

[george]

But, because Minnesota is one of the few states that have no state constitutional right to keep and bear arms, doesn't that open us up to this kind of thing? Give it some time. Explain to me how preemption avoids a state AWB on firearms of there choice. Jest saying.

[Ghost]

But, because Minnesota is one of the few states that have no state constitutional right to keep and bear arms, doesn't that open us up to this kind of thing? Give it some time. Explain to me how preemption avoids a state AWB on firearms of there choice. Jest saying.

The state can do it, Minneapolis can't AFAIK

[Lumpy]

It's starting to look like Heller and McDonald were temporary exceptions to the SC's long-time habit of refusing to touch 2nd Amendment cases with a twenty-foot pole. Only D.C.'s outrageous ban on possessing a functional firearm in one's own home backed the court into a corner and forced it to rule. We're back to "The Embarrassing Second Amendment": if the court had to admit what the 2nd logically and historically means, it would be the end of disarmament laws that have been the status quo since the 1930s.

[george]

Understood, or until a certain class of firearms are considered not to be covered for some reason. Kinda like long guns in a motor vehicle under a P2C.
Sure do wish right to keep and bear arms was in our state constitution but that's another dream.

[bstrawse]

But, because Minnesota is one of the few states that have no state constitutional right to keep and bear arms, doesn't that open us up to this kind of thing? Give it some time. Explain to me how preemption avoids a state AWB on firearms of there choice. Jest saying.

No, a city can't due to our state pre-emption law. The state could.

This court decision has no impact on Minnesota as we're in the 8th Circuit, not the 7th where this decision was written (and let stand by the Supreme Court, for now).
b

[Stylin750]

Since when is a personal or perceived "feeling" a right or a privilege? Feelings just make for bad legislation. The 2nd is a right, the feeling is not. Stop this crap, it only hurts people, sure doesn't protect them.

[Lumpy]

This court decision has no impact on Minnesota as we're in the 8th Circuit, not the 7th where this decision was written (and let stand by the Supreme Court, for now).
b

If two different federal circuits have opposing rulings, doesn't the SC have to issue a ruling in favor of one or the other?

[bstrawse]

This court decision has no impact on Minnesota as we're in the 8th Circuit, not the 7th where this decision was written (and let stand by the Supreme Court, for now).
b

If two different federal circuits have opposing rulings, doesn't the SC have to issue a ruling in favor of one or the other?

Have to? No.

Do they? Sometimes.

b

[rust]

Please post all the states that don't have the pre-emptive, so I won't move there.