Supreme Court leaves in place District of Columbia's gun restriction on large magazines
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday left in place a longstanding gun restriction in the District of Columbia that bans magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, opting once again to avoid taking up a new gun rights case.
The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority that generally favors gun rights, turned away a challenge to the Washington, D.C., law just a few days after rejecting an appeal over a similar law in Rhode Island.
Then, the court also left in place Maryland's ban on assault-style weapons including the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle.
Follow live politics coverage here
The court expanded gun rights in a major 2022 ruling that found for the first time that the right to bear arms under the Constitution's Second Amendment extends outside the home. But the court has since frustrated gun owners by declining to take up cases that would expand upon that ruling.
The District of Columbia has long been a legal battleground over gun restrictions. The Supreme Court's landmark 2008 ruling that for the first time found that people have an individual right to bear arms in self defense in their homes arose from a challenge to a D.C. law.
In the latest case, four gun owners challenged the restriction on large-capacity magazines that was enacted in the aftermath of the 2008 Supreme Court ruling, saying the restriction is unlawful under the later 2022 decision.
Both a federal judge and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the law.
The appeals court, in a 2-1 vote, said in a ruling last year that although large-capacity magazines are arms under the Second Amendment and have been in common use for years, they can be regulated because they are "particularly dangerous."
Last summer, the Supreme Court sidestepped multiple gun-related disputes soon after it issued a ruling that upheld a federal law that prohibits people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms.
In other action on pending appeals Friday, the court decided against taking up a significant election case involving mail-in ballots in the battleground state of Pennsylvania that pitted Republicans against Democrats.
The decision leaves intact a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that said voters who send mail-in ballots that are flagged as defective can then file a separate provision in-person ballot.
The Republican National Committee was seeking to overturn the 2024 state court decision, while the Democratic National Committee was defending it.
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
33 minutes ago
- New York Post
Bill Maher mocks Dems for trying to find ‘their Joe Rogan,' suggests figuring out how they lost him
'Real Time' host Bill Maher mocked the Democratic Party's attempt to find 'their Joe Rogan,' pointing out the irony that the podcaster had leaned left until he became disillusioned with the party. The host explained, 'One idea that's getting a lot of attention is the Dems need to find their Joe Rogan, a liberal Joe Rogan.' Maher argued that rather than 'conjuring up a new Joe Rogan,' Democrats should be asking themselves how they lost him in the first place. Advertisement Rogan previously endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., in the 2020 election. It wasn't until 2024 that Rogan publicly endorsed President Donald Trump. The 'Real Time' host lampooned the idea that the real reason why former Vice President Kamala Harris lost the 2024 election is because 'Republicans have a podcast.' 'Okay, maybe. Or, you could consider this,' Maher jeered. 'Instead of conjuring up a new Joe Rogan, ask yourself why you lost the old one, because he used to be on your side.' In 2024, regarding the Democratic desire to find its own Rogan, the podcaster said, 'They had me.' 'I was on their side,' he added. Advertisement Maher noted that he's watched the political evolution of both Rogan and Musk and their party affiliations didn't switch 'overnight.' Youtube/Real Time with Bill Maher Maher compared Rogan's political transformation to Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who was also a liberal who ended up being 'driven to the other camp by bad attitudes and bad ideas.' Maher noted that he's watched the political evolution of both Rogan and Musk and their party affiliations didn't switch 'overnight.' Maher referenced a 2022 post on then-Twitter from Elon Musk in which he shared a chart depicting his feeling that the Democratic Party had moved too far to the left for him, rather than his ideology moving to the right. Advertisement Rogan previously endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., in the 2020 election. Rogan said that Democrats have moved so far that it 'left a basically liberal centrist like him — now labeled a conservative,' adding that he related to Musk's post. Maher also highlighted attempts by the left to cancel Rogan and Musk as a key reason they abandoned the party. Advertisement 'They tried real hard to cancel Rogan a few years ago — and when Elon hosted 'Saturday Night Live' in 2021, well before he was a Trumper — some of the cast gave him the cold shoulder for the sin of being rich,' he recalled. 'You think people don't remember when you do this s— to them?' The late-night host asserted that while he's never left the party, Democrats need to work hard to get 'all the guys in America like Joe and Elon' back on their side, but assured them that it's still possible.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Illinois congresswoman says Sikh man praying on House floor was ‘deeply troubling'
The Brief U.S. Rep. Mary Miller (R-Illinois) said in a since-deleted post on X that a Sikh chaplain leading a prayer in Congress was "deeply troubling." She initially misidentified the man as Muslim, according to multiple reports. Miller's comments have received backlash from several fellow members of Congress. WASHINGTON, D.C. - A Republican congresswoman representing parts of downstate Illinois is getting heat for saying in a since-deleted social media post on Friday that it was "deeply troubling" to her that a Sikh man led a prayer in the House of Representatives, after misidentifying the man as Muslim. What we know According to multiple reports, U.S. Rep. Mary Miller wrote on X: "It's deeply troubling that a Muslim was allowed to lead prayer in the House of Representatives this morning. This should have never been allowed to happen. "America was founded as a Christian nation, and I believe our government should reflect that truth, not drift further from it. May God have mercy!" Miller then edited the post to reflect that the man was actually Sikh, but later deleted it entirely. Still, Miller's post garnered criticism from multiple members of Congress, including Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, a Democrat who represents parts of Chicago's northwest suburbs and is running for a U.S. Senate seat. He called Miller's comments anti-Sikh and anti-Muslim. "I am appalled by Rep. Mary Miller's comments—first misidentifying a Sikh chaplain as Muslim, then saying he should have 'never been allowed' to lead the House in prayer. Her remarks were both anti-Sikh and anti-Muslim, and they reflect a disturbing pattern of religious intolerance," Krishnamoorthi said. "The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion for all. The Sikh and Muslim communities have long contributed to the strength, service, and spirit of our nation. All Americans—regardless of party—must come together to reject these attacks and stand united against all forms of prejudice." Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-New York), the minority leader in the House, also reacted to Miller's comments saying, "It's deeply troubling that such an ignorant and hateful extremist is serving in the United States Congress. That would be you, Mary." The Congressional Asian Pacific Americans Caucus, which includes Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Illinois) and Krishnamoorthi, said on X that it condemned Miller's anti-Sikh and anti-Muslim bigotry." "Sikhs and Muslims practice two separate and distinct religions, and conflating the two based on how someone looks is not only ignorant but also racist," the CAPAC added in its post. A request for comment to Miller's campaign was not immediately responded to on Saturday. The backstory It's not the first time Miller has drawn ire for controversial comments during her tenure in Congress. Just a few days into her first term in 2021, Miller apologized for knowingly quoting Adolf Hitler during a rally outside of the U.S. Capitol. While discussing the need for the Republican Party to appeal to young people, she said, "Hitler was right on one thing. He said, 'Whoever has the youth has the future.'" She made that comment on Jan. 5, 2021, the day before supporters of President Donald Trump stormed the Capitol to stop the certification of President Joe Biden's 2020 election victory. Miller apologized for the comment and said some were trying to "twist" her words to "mean something antithetical to my beliefs." She added she was "passionately" pro-Israel and "will always be a strong advocate and ally of the Jewish community." In 2022, in response to the U.S. Supreme Court overturning the constitutional right to an abortion, Miller said at a rally the decision was a "victory for white life." A spokesman said Miller meant to say the decision was a victory for a "right to life," and that her comment was a "mix-up of words."
Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
Supreme Court to hear case on IQ tests and death penalty next term
The Supreme Court will hear a case next term centered on the role of multiple IQ scores in determining an Alabama murderer's eligibility for the death penalty, according to a list issued by the court late Friday. In Hamm v. Smith, the state of Alabama is arguing that Joseph Smith — who was sentenced to death for a murder in 1997 — should be executed because he has not proved that his IQ is 70 or below, as required by state law. However, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama vacated Smith's death sentence after ruling he is intellectually disabled because the score on one of his IQ tests could fall below 70 when accounting for margin of error. Smith had obtained five IQ scores that ranged from 72 to 78. The Supreme Court justices agreed to hear Hamm v. Smith to determine a limited question: 'Whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores in assessing an Atkins claim,' referring to the 2002 landmark decision Atkins v. Virginia, which ruled that executing those with intellectual disabilities violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. In November, the Supreme Court issued a per curiam decision to remand the case for further consideration. In it, the justices said that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit — which had affirmed the lower court's decision to vacate Smith's death sentence — had been unclear in why it had issued that decision. In February, the state of Alabama again asked the Supreme Court to intervene, saying the Eleventh Circuit 'watered down the most objective prong of the test, overrode Alabama's definition of intellectual disability, and shattered Atkins's promise to leave meaningful discretion to the States.' 'This case was not close: Smith scored 75, 74, 72, 78, and 74 on five full-scale IQ tests. There is no way to conclude from these five numbers that Smith's true IQ is likely to be 70 or below,' the state of Alabama argued, also adding that evaluating multiple IQ scores is 'complicated' and that the Supreme Court has not specified how to do it. 'Smith could take hundreds of IQ tests, score 75 on all of them, yet his IQ still 'could be' 70, according to the panel [the Eleventh Circuit], because every test could have erred by 5 points. The panel failed to appreciate that multiple tests together can provide a more accurate estimate than each test alone,' the state argued. The Supreme Court's next term is scheduled to begin in October. The list of new cases was not expected until Monday morning, but email notifications about the list were inadvertently sent Friday evening because of a technical glitch, so the court chose to release the list of cases earlier than scheduled. In a statement that accompanied the early release, court spokeswoman Patricia McCabe said the notifications were sent prematurely because of an 'apparent software malfunction.' Justin Jouvenal contributed to this report.
