BREAKING NEWS .Supreme Court denies assault weapons ban challenge [Archive]

mick silver

7th December 2015, 12:39 PM

Supreme Court denies assault weapons ban challengehttps://s.yimg.com/os/152/2012/01/10/ncc-logo3line-color_235559.jpg (http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/) By NCC Staff 32 minutes ago

 (https://www.tumblr.com/share/photo?clickthru=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2Fsupr eme-court-denies-assault-weapons-ban-challenge-150615801.html%3Fsoc_src%3Dmediacontentstory%26soc _trk%3Dtu&caption=On%20Monday%20morning%2C%20the%20United%20 States%20Supreme%20Court%20denied%20a%20potentiall y%20significant%20case%20on%20the%20ability%20of%2 0some%20Americans%20to%20own%20assault%20weapons.&source=http%3A%2F%2Fl3.yimg.com%2Fbt%2Fapi%2Fres%2 F1.2%2FFcGj3tb7QFvPz7rq4xxE5Q--%2FYXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztpbD1wbGFuZTtxPTc1O3c9NjA w%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fmedia.zenfs.com%2Fen_us%2FNews%2F NationalConstitutionCenter%2FGuns_twitter-475x238.jpg)
 (https://www.facebook.com/dialog/feed?app_id=90376669494&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2F_xhr%2 Fmediacontentsharebuttons%2Fpostshare%2F%3Fsrc%3Df b&link=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2Fsupreme-court-denies-assault-weapons-ban-challenge-150615801.html%3Fsoc_src%3Dmediacontentstory%26soc _trk%3Dfb&picture=http%3A%2F%2Fl3.yimg.com%2Fbt%2Fapi%2Fres% 2F1.2%2FFcGj3tb7QFvPz7rq4xxE5Q--%2FYXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztpbD1wbGFuZTtxPTc1O3c9NjA w%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fmedia.zenfs.com%2Fen_us%2FNews%2F NationalConstitutionCenter%2FGuns_twitter-475x238.jpg&name=Supreme+Court+denies+assault+weapons+ban+chal lenge&description=On+Monday+morning%2C+the+United+States +Supreme+Court+denied+a+potentially+significant+ca se+on+the+ability+of+some+Americans+to+own+assault +weapons.&display=popup&show_error=yes)
 (https://twitter.com/share?text=Supreme+Court+denies+assault+weapons+ba n+challenge&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2Fsupreme-court-denies-assault-weapons-ban-challenge-150615801.html%3Fsoc_src%3Dmediacontentstory%26soc _trk%3Dtw&via=YahooNews)
 (https://news.yahoo.com/_xhr/mtf_popup/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2Fsupreme-court-denies-assault-weapons-ban-challenge-150615801.html%3Fsoc_src%3Dmediacontentstory%26soc _trk%3Dma&site=news&region=US&lang=en-US&content_id=0a251246-2c8b-35b2-9144-a6a4bbef0e30&alias_id=story%3Dsupreme-court-denies-assault-weapons-ban-challenge-150615801)

Content preferences (https://settings.yahoo.com/interests)

Done

On Monday morning, the United States Supreme Court denied a potentially significant case on the ability of some Americans to own assault weapons.

View photo
.
https://s1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/hz9NGeWzaEM0sZS61PM7WA--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztxPTg1O3c9MjQw/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/NationalConstitutionCenter/Guns_twitter-475x238.jpg
The case of Friedman v. City of Highland Park (http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/friedman-v-city-of-highland-park/)has been listed in recent months for consideration by the nine Supreme Court Justices in private conference. It takes a minimum for four Justices to agree to hear an appeal before the full Court during its current term.Without announcing the vote count in private conference today, the Supreme Court declined to accept the appeal from Dr. Arie Friedman and the Illinois State Rifle Association. They believed the suburban Illinois city violated their Second Amendment rights when it passed the ownership ban on various semi-automatic weapons, as well as a ban on ammunition clips that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
Link: Read Thomas’ Dissent (http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/120715zor_6j37.pdf)
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas issued a written dissent after the denial, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia.
“The Court’s refusal to review a decision that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents stands in marked contrast to the Court’s willingness to summarily reverse courts that disregard our other constitutional decisions,” Thomas said. “There is no basis for a different result when our Second Amendment precedents are at stake.”
Back in April 2015, a divided the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled in favor of the Highland Park weapons ban. In the 2-1 decision, Judge Frank Easterbrook said that the issue of a national right to own specific weapons was best left to the Supreme Court.
Two landmark rulings, District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, set recent Supreme Court precedents on gun ownership in very general terms.
Link: Interpreting the Second Amendment In Our Interactive Constitution (http://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-ii)
“Heller and McDonald set limits on the regulation of firearms; but within those limits, they leave matters open. The best way to evaluate the relation among assault weapons, crime, and self‐defense is through the political process and scholarly debate, not by parsing ambiguous passages in the Supreme Court’s opinions,” said Easterbrook in April 2015.
Seventh Circuit Appeals Judge Daniel Manion disagreed with Easterbrook in a strongly worded dissent. Limiting gun ownership restricts self-defense and represents an “enormous transfer of authority from the citizens of this country to the government – a result directly contrary to our Constitution and to our political tradition,” he wrote.
In their appeal to the Supreme Court, the attorneys for Friedman wanted the Court to spell out some more details on its Second Amendment jurisprudence.
“The Seventh Circuit upheld bans on commonly possessed firearms and magazines that clearly are unconstitutional under Heller, and it did so by applying a newly minted three-part test, all three parts of which stand in direct conflict with. Enough is enough,” their brief said.
Highland Park petitioned the Supreme Court to deny the appeal. “The City of Highland Park’s ordinance bans only highly dangerous weapons that have been used in a series of mass shooting events, and it does not violate the Second Amendment,” it claims. “Restrictions on assault weapons and large capacity magazines have been repeatedly held to be in harmony with this Court’s decisions in Heller and McDonald and do not impose an unconstitutional burden on the rights secured by the Second Amendment.”
Recent Stories on Constitution Daily
Constitution Check: If a particular gun is widely popular, does that put it under the Second Amendment? (http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/10/constitution-check-if-a-particular-gun-is-widely-popular-does-that-put-it-under-the-second-amendment/)
Constitution Check: Are gun rights withering away? (http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/06/constitution-check-are-gun-rights-withering-away/)
150 years ago today: The United States formally outlaws slavery (http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/12/150-years-ago-today-the-united-states-formally-outlaws-slavery/)

mick silver

7th December 2015, 12:42 PM

32 minutes ago

Click to view comments 
View Comments (2181) https://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-denies-assault-weapons-ban-challenge-150615801.html

mick silver

7th December 2015, 12:44 PM

ORDER LIST: 577 U.S.)

MONDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2015
CERTIORARI -- SUMMARY DISPOSITION
15-24 FRANCE, GARY L. V. UNITED STATES
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The
judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit for further
consideration in light of the confession of error by the
Solicitor General in his brief for the United States filed on
November 6, 2015.
ORDERS IN PENDING CASES
15A458 SORENSEN, JEROLD R. V. UNITED STATES (15-595) The application for stay addressed to The Chief Justice and
referred to the Court is denied.
15A479 WILKERSON, MARY V. UNITED STATES
The application for release on bond pending appeal addressed
to Justice Ginsburg and referred to the Court is denied.
15M61 HARDY, DAVID V. BIRKETT, WARDEN
15M62 WILKINSON, REGINALD V. GEO GROUP, INC., ET AL.
The motions to direct the Clerk to file petitions for writs
of certiorari out of time are denied.
15-5527 KEARNEY, RICHARD V. NY DOC, ET AL.
15-5748 CAMPBELL, JAMES B. V. JONES, SEC., FL DOC
15-5767 COLLIE, CYNTHIA E. V. SC COMMISSION ON LAWYER CONDUCT
15-6027 HOWELL, BURL A. V. UNITED STATES
The motions of petitioners for reconsideration of orders
1

denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis are denied.
15-6370 JACKSON, BILL D. V. WHITE, JESSE, ET AL.
15-6806 DIXON, ADDIE E. V. McDONALD, SEC. OF VA
The motions of petitioners for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis are denied. Petitioners are allowed until December 28,
2015, within which to pay the docketing fees required by Rule
38(a) and to submit petitions in compliance with Rule 33.1 of
the Rules of this Court.
CERTIORARI DENIED
14-1391 BOWDEN, BOBBY E. V. NORTH CAROLINA
14-9299 MARSHALL, ANDREW V. BUREAU OF PRISONS
14-10447 FRIES, TODD R. V. UNITED STATES
15-65 LIZCANO, JUAN V. TEXAS
15-147 SULLIVAN, BRIAN T. V. GLENN, MICHAEL R., ET UX.
15-210 GEOFFREY, LORRIE V. GEOFFREY, BRYAN
15-245 MANN, STEWART C. V. UNITED STATES
15-270 SMILEY, ALLENA B. V. HARTFORD LIFE, ET AL.
15-272 HAWKINS, CHARLES J. V. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK
15-381 FIVETECH TECHNOLOGY INC. V. SOUTHCO, INC.
15-384 SITKA ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL. V. MIRANDA, WILFREDO S., ET AL.
15-385 BOND, FREDERICK O. V. HOLDER, ERIC H., ET AL.
15-389 DICKEY, JAMES V. BOSTON INSPECTIONAL SERVICES
15-390 ING, TONY V. LEE, THOMAS
15-394 CUNDA, JOSE S. V. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON
15-396 ROUSE, AMBROSIO V. II-VI INC., ET AL.
15-397 RACZ, JOHN V. KNIPP, WARDEN
15-398 PETRELLA, DIANE, ET AL. V. BROWNBACK, GOV. OF KS, ET AL.
15-407 VILLEGAS, JOHN E., ET AL. V. SCHMIDT, MICHAEL B.
2

15-408 LIPIN, JOAN C. V. DANSKE BANK, ET AL.
15-418 WYNN, DEBORAH J. V. CALLAN APPRAISAL INC., ET AL.
15-422 JONES, LAVERNE, ET AL. V. DANCEL, BERNALDO, ET AL.
15-426 EVANS, NATHALEE, ET AL. V. McCULLOUGH, THOMAS B., ET AL.
15-431 HUNN, MARSHALL V. WILSON HOMES INC., ET AL.
15-433 CRIDER, ROBERT J. V. TEXAS
15-441 HILL, THOMAS V. CURTIN, WARDEN
15-455 ASKEW, DIRK, ET UX. V. UNITED STATES
15-462 WENTHE, CHRISTOPHER T. V. MINNESOTA
15-542 KATZ, MICHAEL A. V. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP
15-5043 GUTIERREZ, RICARDO J. V. UNITED STATES
15-5147 LARA-RUIZ, GILBERTO V. UNITED STATES
15-5149 MAKI, ALLEN V. ANDERSON, BEVERLY, ET AL.
15-5635 STEPHENS, RENEE V. NIKE, INC.
15-5740 RAYFORD, WILLIAM E. V. STEPHENS, DIR., TX DCJ
15-5886 PICKENS, MARK V. OHIO
15-5940 GONZALES, RAMIRO F. V. STEPHENS, DIR., TX DCJ
15-5958 PLASCENCIA-ACOSTA, GABRIEL V. UNITED STATES
15-5964 RODRIGUEZ-RODRIGUEZ, BENJAMIN V. UNITED STATES
15-6282 ROBERSON, ROBERT L. V. STEPHEN, DIR., TX DCJ
15-6344 PARKER, WILLIAM R. V. TEXAS
15-6346 ESCAMILLA, GEORGE V. ESCAMILLA, KATHLEEN T., ET AL.
15-6352 TRAYLOR, ANDRE D. V. McLAUGHLIN, WARDEN
15-6354 LEACH, NADINE V. NEW YORK
15-6358 ROBLES, ADRIAN V. CALIFORNIA
15-6364 HUDSON, BIVEN V. UNITED STATES
15-6369 WAGNER, SHERMAN O. V. BURT, WARDEN
15-6386 HUBBARD, RODNEY A. V. WOODS, WARDEN
3

15-6389 HEGEWALD, MICHAEL V. GLEBE, PAT
15-6390 GOODMAN, KEITH D. V. CLARKE, DIR., VA DOC, ET AL.
15-6391 GU, ALEX V. PRESENCE SAINT JOSEPH, ET AL.
15-6394 McBRIDE, DEWEY L. V. ARIZONA
15-6395 DAVIS, DERRICK D. V. PAT THOMAS, ET AL.
15-6405 BERNIER, REJEANNE M. V. COURT OF APPEAL OF CA, ET AL.
15-6410 VILLA, MANUEL V. CALIFORNIA
15-6411 TOWERY, DOSHEE S. V. STEPHENS, DIR., TX DCJ
15-6412 REID, MICHAEL J. V. FLORIDA
15-6421 TITTLE, TYRONE V. CALIFORNIA
15-6423 REDMAN, EARLA G. V. NY DOC, ET AL
15-6427 LASCHKEWITSCH, JOHN B. V. RELIASTAR LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
15-6436 ADAMS, NOEL W. V. LYNCH, ATT'Y GEN.
15-6453 GONZALES, HENRY V. TEXAS
15-6465 BERNIER, REJEANNE V. COURT OF APPEAL OF CA, ET AL.
15-6474 GOUCH-ONASSIS, DEBORAH E. V. UNITED STATES
15-6477 ROBINSON, ALFRED V. COLVIN, ACTING COMM'R, SOCIAL
15-6486 GOMEZ, NEXIS R. V. GIPSON, WARDEN
15-6498 MEDRANO, ANGEL V. RYAN, DIR., AZ DOC, ET AL.
15-6530 McNEW, MICHAEL A. V. TIBBALS, WARDEN
15-6533 PALOMAR, ARTURO F. V. BARNES, WARDEN
15-6534 PAPPAS, MARKOS N. V. UNITED STATES
15-6542 WHITE, CHARLES P. V. INDIANA
15-6546 ROSADO, ELIAS V. JONES, SEC. FL DOC, ET AL.
15-6547 SILVA, CARLOS J. V. LYNCH, ATT'Y GEN.
15-6576 PEDERSEN, JEFFERY V. RICHARDSON, WARDEN
15-6639 PUENTES, BENJAMIN V. SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CA, ET AL.
15-6652 ROBINSON, FRED V. UNITED STATES
4

15-6676 HUTCHESON, SCOTT B. V. UNITED STATES
15-6692 ROSE, CHE V. UNITED STATES
15-6707 NWAFOR, LEONARD U. V. UNITED STATES
15-6715 HARDIN, DAVID L. V. UNITED STATES
15-6720 HOSSEINI, AMIR V. UNITED STATES
15-6721 GUAJARDO, FRANK Z. V. McDONALD, SEC. OF VA
15-6726 GRIFFIN, KANDACE R. V. UNITED STATES
15-6727 MEDRANO, NOE F. V. UNITED STATES
15-6728 PAPPAS, MARKOS V. ZICKEFOOSE, WARDEN
15-6729 GARCIA-ROSAS, JULIO C. V. UNITED STATES
15-6732 ALLEN, LESLIE D. V. UNITED STATES
15-6736 CRUELL, MAURICE X. V. UNITED STATES
15-6737 TRAN, JESSICA L. V. UNITED STATES
15-6739 BURGOS-MONTES, EDISON V. UNITED STATES
15-6741 DIAZ, JUAN V. UNITED STATES
15-6742 PERKINS, JEAN-DANIEL V. UNITED STATES
15-6744 ROSALES, PEDRO V. UNITED STATES
15-6749 LOHSE, DARRAN V. UNITED STATES
15-6752 MOORE, SAMUEL J. V. UNITED STATES
15-6770 VICKERS, DONALD V. JONES, SEC., FL DOC, ET AL.
15-6771 SANDELIER, THOMAS A. V. FLORIDA
15-6772 COLLINS, RUSSELL L. V. UNITED STATES
15-6773 JOHNSON, ERNEST L. V. LOMBARDI, GEORGE A., ET AL.
15-6775 MAURICIO-TRUJILLO, PEDRO V. UNITED STATES
15-6776 MEDLOCK, KATHY V. UNITED STATES
15-6777 KRAEGER, KENNETH V. UNITED STATES
15-6780 CAMICK, LESLIE L. V. UNITED STATES
15-6781 SALAZAR-ESPINOZA, MANUEL V. HASTINGS, WARDEN
5

15-6782 JOHNSON, ERNEST L. V. GRIFFITH, WARDEN
15-6785 CALAIS, DWAYNE V. UNITED STATES
15-6787 RASHID, AMIN A. V. ORTIZ, WARDEN
15-6791 MOORE, LEONARD V. UNITED STATES
15-6795 TURNER, HAYZEN V. UNITED STATES
15-6799 CIPRA, DONALD P. V. UNITED STATES
15-6800 ARMENTA-AGUILAR, EFRAIN V. UNITED STATES
15-6803 JACKMAN, DONALD G. V. UNITED STATES
15-6804 BROWN, JAKOTA R., ET AL. V. UNITED STATES
15-6818 WOOLSEY, CHARLES M. V. UNITED STATES
15-6819 WADLEY, LODISE V. FARLEY, WARDEN
15-6820 YOUNG, MYRON V. UNITED STATES
15-6838 WILLIAMS, JEFFREY D. V. UNITED STATES
15-6842 SHELIKHOVA, IRINA V. UNITED STATES
15-6844 BUTLER, JAMES V. UNITED STATES
15-6848 ROSALES-VELASQUEZ, ADELMO I. V. UNITED STATES
15-6850 LINDSEY, ROBERT V. UNITED STATES
15-6851 LOPEZ-VENCES, PORFIRIO V. UNITED STATES
15-6854 MONTERO-ORNELAS, RICARDO V. UNITED STATES
15-6855 NINO-GUERERRO, RUBEN V. UNITED STATES
The petitions for writs of certiorari are denied.
15-416 MICHIGAN V. LOCKRIDGE, RAHIM O.
The motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari
is denied.
15-471 ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT LEGAL INST. V. EPEL, JOSHUA, ET AL.
The motion of Pacific Legal Foundation, et al. for leave to
file a brief as amici curiae is granted. The motion of Chamber
6

of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. for leave to
file a brief as amici curiae is granted. The motion of
Association des Eleveurs de Canards et d'Oies du Quebec, et al.
for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is granted. The
petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
15-6373 LANCASTER, CHARLES C. V. TEXAS
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is
dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the petitioner has repeatedly
abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept
any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner
unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the
petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin
v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992)
(per curiam).
15-6735 BARNETT, TRACY A. V. MAYE, WARDEN
15-6758 WARREN, JOHNNY S. V. UNITED STATES
15-6826 LORA, WILFREDO G. V. UNITED STATES
The petitions for writs of certiorari are denied. Justice
Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of these
petitions.
HABEAS CORPUS DENIED
15-6931 IN RE GEORGE H. GAGE
15-6955 IN RE JOHN H. JONES
15-6972 IN RE MARVIN GREEN
The petitions for writs of habeas corpus are denied.
15-6807 IN RE WILFREDO G. LORA
The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied. Justice
7

Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this
petition.
MANDAMUS DENIED
15-6398 IN RE OTIS F. ERVIN
The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.
REHEARINGS DENIED
14-8863 DEBOLT, GARY R. V. UNITED STATES
14-9429 HAMMONDS, ANTHONY D. V. BO'S FOOD STORE
14-9590 J. D. T. V. UNITED STATES
14-9691 RODARTE, JOHN E. V. STEPHENS, DIR., TX DCJ
14-9742 ELAM, JOHN K. V. PASTRANA, WARDEN
14-9841 DOUGHERTY, ROBERT W. V. PRUETT, WARDEN
14-9853 MEDLEY, CLIFFORD V. STEPHENS, DIR., TX DCJ
14-9943 TAPP, SEAN V. ECKARD, SUPT., HUNTINGDON
14-10258 CHEEK, LINDA S. V. UNITED STATES
14-10281 TURNER, RAY V. STEWARD, WARDEN
14-10328 JONES, ARDELIA V. NUTTALL AFC COMPANY, ET AL.
14-10420 IN RE COREY ROWE
14-10444 TALLEY, JAMES V. SIMANDLE, CHIEF JUDGE, USDC NJ
15-53 CARPENTER, DANIEL E. V. UNITED STATES
15-112 SKIPP-TITTLE, SUSAN V. TITTLE, SHAWN
15-160 SENCI, ALBA N. V. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON
15-171 DeFAZIO, JAMES P., ET AL. V. HOLLISTER, INC., ET AL.
15-279 SONE, KENSHO, ET AL. V. HARVEST NATURAL RESOURCES, INC.
15-5157 KELLY, ANTHONY V. BISHOP, WARDEN, ET AL.
15-5362 CRAYTON, FREDDIE V. FLORIDA
15-5478 JONES, CLAUDE V. V. CARTLEDGE, WARDEN
15-5479 FISHER, TWANA V. IRONTON, OH
8

15-5541 BRAMAGE, WALTER J. V. DISCOVER BANK
15-5590 MOODY, PAULINE V. DELRAY BEACH, FL, ET AL.
15-5747 CLUGSTON, CHARLES T. V. BATISTA, DIR., MT DOC, ET AL.
15-5911 LINDOR, JEAN M. V. UNITED STATES
15-5975 JHA, MANOJ K. V. UNITED STATES
15-6047 CARDENAS, JULIO C. V. UNITED STATES
The petitions for rehearing are denied.
ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE
D-2857 IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE OF LUIGI ROSABIANCA
Luigi Rosabianca, of New York, New York, is suspended from
the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue,
returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he
should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
D-2858 IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE OF MICHAEL S. SEPCICH
Michael S. Sepcich, of Metairie, Louisiana, is suspended
from the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue,
returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he
should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
D-2859 IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE OF WILLIAM JENNINGS JEFFERSON
William Jennings Jefferson, of New Orleans, Louisiana, is
suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a rule will
issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause
why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this
Court.
D-2860 IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE OF ALAN JOHN ABADIE
Alan John Abadie, of Chalmette, Louisiana, is suspended from
the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue,
returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he
9

should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
D-2861 IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE OF SHAUNTESE CURRY TRYE
Shauntese Curry Trye, of Baltimore, Maryland, is suspended
from the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue,
returnable within 40 days, requiring her to show cause why she
should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
D-2862 IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE OF GERRY G. ZOBRIST
Gerry G. Zobrist, of Las Vegas, Nevada, is suspended from
the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue,
returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he
should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
D-2863 IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE OF JOHN J. KORESKO, V
John J. Koresko, V, of Bridgeport, Pennsylvania, is
suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a rule will
issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause
why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this
Court.
D-2864 IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE OF DONALD P. ROSEN
Donald P. Rosen, of Carpentersville, Illinois, is suspended
from the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue,
returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he
should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
D-2865 IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE OF DANIEL ROZENSTRAUCH
Daniel Rozenstrauch, of Chicago, Illinois, is suspended from
the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue,
returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he
should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
10

D-2866 IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE OF DAVID E. NEELY
David E. Neely, of Chicago, Illinois, is suspended from the
practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue, returnable
within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be
disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
D-2867 IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE OF CARLA RUTH McBEATH
Carla Ruth McBeath, of Fort Lee, New Jersey, is suspended
from the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue,
returnable within 40 days, requiring her to show cause why she
should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
D-2868 IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE OF CHERYL ROSE BRAWLEY
Cheryl Rose Brawley, of Honolulu, Hawaii, is suspended from
the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue,
returnable within 40 days, requiring her to show cause why she
should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
11

Cite as: 577 U. S. ____ (2015) 1
THOMAS, J., dissenting SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ARIE S. FRIEDMAN, ET AL. v. CITY OF
HIGHLAND PARK, ILLINOIS
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 15–133. Decided December 7, 2015
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA joins, dissenting from the denial of certiorari. “[O]ur central holding in” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), was “that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home.” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 780 (2010) (plurality opinion). And in McDonald, we recognized that the Second Amendment applies fully against the States as well as the Federal Government. Id., at 750; id., at 805 (THOMAS, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Despite these holdings, several Courts of Appeals— including the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the decision below—have upheld categorical bans on firearms that millions of Americans commonly own for lawful purposes. See 784 F. 3d 406, 410–412 (2015). Because noncompliance with our Second Amendment precedents warrants this Court’s attention as much as any of our precedents, I would grant certiorari in this case. I The City of Highland Park, Illinois, bans manufacturing, selling, giving, lending, acquiring, or possessing many of the most commonly owned semiautomatic firearms, which the City branded “Assault Weapons.” See Highland Park, Ill., City Code §§136.001(C), 136.005 (2015), App. to Pet. for Cert. 65a, 71a. For instance, the ordinance crimi

2 FRIEDMAN v. HIGHLAND PARK
THOMAS, J., dissenting nalizes modern sporting rifles (e.g., AR-style semiautomatic rifles), which many Americans own for lawful purposes like self-defense, hunting, and target shooting. The City also prohibited “Large Capacity Magazines,” a term the City used to refer to nearly all ammunition feeding devices that “accept more than ten rounds.” §136.001(G), id., at 70a. The City gave anyone who legally possessed “an Assault Weapon or Large Capacity Magazine” 60 days to move these items outside city limits, disable them, or surrender them for destruction. §136.020, id., at 73a. Anyone who violates the ordinance can be imprisoned for up to six months, fined up to $1,000, or both. §136.999, id., at 74a. Petitioners—a Highland Park resident who sought to keep now-prohibited firearms and magazines to defend his home, and an advocacy organization—brought a suit to enjoin the ordinance on the ground that it violates the Second Amendment. The District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment to the City. A divided panel of the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The panel majority acknowledged that the prohibited weapons “can be beneficial for self-defense because they are lighter than many rifles and less dangerous per shot than largercaliber pistols or revolvers,” and thus “[h]ouseholders too frightened or infirm to aim carefully may be able to wield them more effectively.” 784 F. 3d, at 411. The majority nonetheless found no constitutional problem with the ordinance. It recognized that Heller “holds that a law banning the possession of handguns in the home . . . violates” the Second Amendment. 784 F. 3d, at 407. But beyond Heller’s rejection of banning handguns in the home, the majority believed, Heller and McDonald “leave matters open” on the scope of the Second Amendment. 784 F. 3d, at 412. The majority thus adopted a new test for gauging the constitutionality of bans on firearms: “[W]e [will] ask whether a regulation bans weapons that

Cite as: 577 U. S. ____ (2015) 3
THOMAS, J., dissenting were common at the time of ratification or those that have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, . . . and whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense.” Id., at 410 (internal quotation marks omitted). Judge Manion dissented, reasoning that “[b]oth the ordinance and this court’s opinion upholding it are directly at odds with the central holdings of Heller and McDonald.” Id., at 412. II The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” We explained in Heller and McDonald that the Second Amendment “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Heller, supra, at 592; see also McDonald, supra, at 767– 769. We excluded from protection only “those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 625. And we stressed that “[t]he very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government— the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.” Id., at 634 (emphasis deleted). Instead of adhering to our reasoning in Heller, the Seventh Circuit limited Heller to its facts, and read Heller to forbid only total bans on handguns used for self-defense in the home. See 784 F. 3d, at 407, 412. All other questions about the Second Amendment, the Seventh Circuit concluded, should be defined by “the political process and scholarly debate.” Id., at 412. But Heller repudiates that approach. We explained in Heller that “since th[e] case represent[ed] this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify

4 FRIEDMAN v. HIGHLAND PARK
THOMAS, J., dissenting the entire field.” 554 U. S., at 635. We cautioned courts against leaving the rest of the field to the legislative process: “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.” Id., at 634–635. Based on its crabbed reading of Heller, the Seventh Circuit felt free to adopt a test for assessing firearm bans that eviscerates many of the protections recognized in Heller and McDonald. The court asked in the first instance whether the banned firearms “were common at the time of ratification” in 1791. 784 F. 3d, at 410. But we said in Heller that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” 554 U. S., at 582. The Seventh Circuit alternatively asked whether the banned firearms relate “to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” 784 F. 3d, at 410 (internal quotation marks omitted). The court concluded that state and local ordinances never run afoul of that objective, since “states, which are in charge of militias, should be allowed to decide when civilians can possess military-grade firearms.” Ibid. But that ignores Heller’s fundamental premise: The right to keep and bear arms is an independent, individual right. Its scope is defined not by what the militia needs, but by what private citizens commonly possess. 554 U. S., at 592, 627–629. Moreover, the Seventh Circuit endorsed the view of the militia that Heller rejected. We explained that “Congress retains plenary authority to organize the militia,” not States. Id., at 600 (emphasis added). Because the Second Amendment confers rights upon individual citizens—not state governments—it was doubly wrong for the Seventh Circuit to delegate to States and localities the power to decide which firearms people may possess.

Cite as: 577 U. S. ____ (2015) 5
THOMAS, J., dissenting Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “[i]f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411. Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411. That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625. The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629. The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411–412. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—“are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id., at 409. Still, the court

6 FRIEDMAN v. HIGHLAND PARK
THOMAS, J., dissenting concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id., at 412. Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. 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. III The Court’s refusal to review a decision that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents stands in marked contrast to the Court’s willingness to summarily reverse courts that disregard our other constitutional decisions. E.g., Maryland v. Kulbicki, ante, at 1 (per curiam) (summarily reversing because the court below applied Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (1984), “in name only”); Grady v. North Carolina, 575 U. S. ___ (2015) (per curiam) (summarily reversing a judgment inconsistent with this Court’s recent Fourth Amendment precedents); Martinez v. Illinois, 572 U. S. ___, ___ (2014) (per curiam) (slip op., at 10) (summarily reversing judgment that rested on an “understandable” double jeopardy holding that nonetheless “r[an] directly counter to our precedents”). There is no basis for a different result when our Second Amendment precedents are at stake. I would grant certiorari to prevent the Seventh Circuit from relegating the Second Amendment to a second-class right.

mick silver

7th December 2015, 12:47 PM

Common Interpretation The Second Amendment
The Second AmendmentBy Nelson Lund and Adam Winkler http://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/

mick silver

7th December 2015, 02:24 PM

https://www.graphiq.com/wlp/lVfrYUWD4ln?data-uid=6312a2807e&data-campaign=60f807b96c

The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence and the Brady Campaign together publish a 0-100 score rating each state's strictness relating to firearm laws, with 100 being the strictest. The data below shows each state's respective gun law score.

Louisiana

Gun Laws Score
12

Low
High
Gun Laws Score

Source: Brady Campaign.
Data from 2013 Reports