In the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, where a deranged killed 26 people with a no-frills AR-15 (no, he did not leave it in the trunk), anti-gun lawmakers in Connecticut and New York passed draconian gun control laws that required the registration of common firearms.
These laws were roundly ignored by those the government would ensnare. More than 95-percent of New Yorkers refused to register their guns. More than 90-percent of Connecticut gun owners also refused. Everyone knew that registration was an essential path on the road to confiscation, and they were having none of it.
Gun owners then filed cases attempting to repeal these blatantly unconstitutional laws.
To nobody’s surprise, the Supreme Court, is again refusing to hear an assault weapons ban case.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday morning declined to hear challenges to laws in Connecticut and New York that expanded the definition of banned assault weapons in that state. The court’s action likely dooms — at least for the near future — parallel challenges to similar challenges in several other states.
In addition to the Connecticut case of Shew V. Malloy, the court declined to hear Kampfer v. Cuomo, which challenged the SAFE Act.
Last October, the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of the Connecticut law as well as the SAFE Act — both measures that passed in response to the December 2012 killings in Newtown, Conn.
The three-judge 2nd Circuit panel concluded that the “core provisions” of the expanded bans on assault weapons in both states do not violate the Second Amendment because they are “substantially related to the achievement of an important governmental interest” — public safety and crime reduction — and are therefore subject to intermediate and not strict court scrutiny.
We explained why the Court would refuse to hear the case last year, when they likewise refused to hear the similar Highland Park (Illinois) ban. Put bluntly, the left-leaning justices on the Court don’t want to admit the obvious requirement that these laws be looked at with strict scrutiny, which require them to be overturned.
We’ll frankly be shocked if the Court takes up the case for a very simple reason: if they do hear the case they’ll be forced to admit that the semi-automatic, “miltary-style” firearms banned in Highland Park are precisely the kind of contemporary arms of military utility that the militia must have according to the Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment is not about hunting, nor target shooting.
The explicit purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure that the pre-existing natural right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed, because if “the People” do not have access to modern firearms suitable for military service, then they cannot possible be “well-regulated” (in proper working order, or in modern English, “well-trained and equipped”) as the Founding Fathers intended and made clear not just in the wording of the Second Amendment itself, but in their speeches, letters, and other historical documents.
The “assault weapons” banned by Highland Park and targeted by President Barack Obama and other anti-gun liberals are clearly protected by the explicit intent and text of the Second Amendment.
AR-15s, in particular, are incredibly well-suited for the modern militia, as they have roughly 90% parts commonality with the U.S. military’s standard service rifles, the selective-fire M4 carbine and M16 assault rifle. These firearms use the same ammunition, magazines, cleaning supplies, and most of the same spare parts, and have a common manual of arms. Further, since there are more than 2.5 times the number of AR-15s in civilian hands than their are M4s and M16s in military hands, it is also clear that most of the deterrent threat to foreign invasion resides not in just our ability to project power overseas, but in a citizen militia that is far larger and better armed on an individual basis that the largest armies in the world, combined.
This same unorganized militia is also the reason why a corrupt federal government would fair poorly in any attempt to impose tyranny upon the citizenry of the United States.
Any court upholding an “assault weapons” ban is spitting on the Constitution of the United States.
The Supreme Court must overturn such a ban if they take up the case, and they know it… which is why we sadly suspect they will refuse to hear the case at all.
You can expect the Supreme Court to keep turning away these cases until either one side or the other has a clear and overwhelming majority of justices.
You can also expect citizens to continue to completely ignore these blatantly unconstitutional laws, whether they’re currently the “legal” law of the land, or not.