The United States Supreme Court shot down an appeal to challenge a Chicago-area ban on large-capacity bullet magazines and assault weapons. Nine Supreme Court justices refused to hear the case on Monday, which stopped the matter from moving forward.
The refusal comes at a time when the debate over gun control is particularly heated -- with gun rights advocates seeking more liberties and gun control proponents seeking to regulate the proliferation of firearms in our country. Arguments about gun control have intensified after a non-stop string of mass shooting events in recent years. Many gun rights advocates believe that more people should carry firearms to combat lunatic mass shootings when they occur. On the other hand, gun control advocates believe that the solution is to make it harder to own guns, and that this will help stop mass shooting events.
Scalia and Thomas Said Case Should Have Been Heard
As a result of the Supreme Court's decision on Monday, an ordinance passed in Highland Park, Illinois, in 2013, will remain in effect. In spite of the nine refusals, however, there was some disagreement among the justices. Two conservative judges, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, said that they should have moved forward with the case.
The Highland Park ordinance prohibits the ownership of different kinds of semi-automatic assault weapons, like the AK-47 and the AR-15. It also prohibits large capacity ammunition magazines that hold over 10 bullet rounds.
Case Received Support From National Rifle Association
The challenge to the ordinance was brought by the Illinois State Rifle Association and gun owner Arie Friedman. The case was supported by the National Rifle Association and 24 U.S. states, which asked the Supreme Court to hear the case. Earlier in 2015, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago also rejected the challenge, ruling that the law does not violate the Second Amendment right to bear arms in the U.S. Constitution.
What do you think about this issue? Should the U.S. Supreme Court have decided to hear this case? Please post your comments and opinions below.
Bankruptcy – Business
Bankruptcy – Personal
Criminal Law – Appellate
Criminal Law – Federal
Criminal Law – State Felony & Misdemeanor
Drunk Driving Defense
Dumb or Weird Laws
GM Ignition Switch
Stryker Hip Replacement
Intellectual Property Law
Labor & Employment Law
Landlord Tenant Law
Personal Injury – Defendant
Personal Injury – Plaintiff
Social Security Disability
Weird Law Friday
Trending Searches#TBT #ThrowbackThursday constitutional law Criminal Law - State Felony & Misdemeanor dangerous or defective products divorce DUI dumb laws estate planning Events that Changed History Family Law FAQ first-amendment product-recall products liability random laws recall safety recall strange laws weird laws