Latest news with #HookElementarySchool
Yahoo
4 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Supreme Court leaves in place state bans on some semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity gun magazines
The Supreme Court declined Monday to hear arguments in a significant Second Amendment challenge to Maryland's ban on certain semi-automatic weapons, a move that leaves the state's law in place. Maryland's ban, enacted after the deadly 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, prohibits the sale or ownership of certain semi-automatic weapons such as AR- and AK-style rifles. The law was challenged by David Snope, a state resident who wants to purchase those rifles for self-defense and other purposes. The Supreme Court also declined to hear a challenge to Rhode Island's ban on high-capacity gun magazines, leaving that law in place. Conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissented from the court's decision not to hear the pair of cases. The 2022 Rhode Island law prohibits the possession of large-capacity feeding devices or magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. It requires owners of such devices to either modify them to fit the 10-round limit, sell them to a firearms dealer, remove them from Rhode Island or hand them over to law enforcement. The law required such action to be taken within 180 days of its passage, after which time violators faced up to five years in prison. Meanwhile, in the Maryland case involving automatic rifles, the Richmond-based federal appeals court upheld Maryland's law over the summer, finding that the guns at issue are 'dangerous and unusual weapons' and therefore are not covered by the Second Amendment's protections. The majority also concluded that there were historical analogues to the Maryland statute that were adopted by state legislatures across the country in the 19th and 20th century. US Circuit Judge Harvie Wilkinson, who was named to the bench by President Ronald Reagan, wrote for the court that 'we decline to wield the Constitution to declare that military-style armaments which have become primary instruments of mass killing and terrorist attacks in the United States are beyond the reach of our nation's democratic processes.' In dissent, US Circuit Judge Julius Richardson, a Trump nominee, wrote that the majority opinion 'disregards the Founders' wisdom and replaces it with its own.' Following the Supreme Court's blockbuster 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which struck down a strict requirement in New York that residents show cause to obtain a carry permit, the justices have largely avoided major guns cases. In July, for instance, the court declined to take up a challenge to a similar ban on assault-style weapons in Illinois. The decisions have had the practical effect of leaving the gun prohibitions in place amid a fierce debate playing out in lower courts over exactly what the Supreme Court meant by requiring firearm laws to be 'consistent with this nation's historical tradition.' Last year, the Supreme Court upheld a federal law that prohibits Americans who are the subject of certain domestic abuse restraining orders from owning a weapon, despite the fact that no identical law existed at the time of the nation's founding. Thomas said in a solo dissent on Monday that the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals had erred in upholding the Maryland law. The prohibition, Thomas wrote, could not be squared with the 2022 decision in Bruen, which he authored, that said the nation's gun laws must have a connection to history to survive constitutional scrutiny. 'It is difficult to see how Maryland's categorical prohibition on AR–15s passes muster under this framework,' Thomas wrote in dissent. This story has been updated with additional details.
Los Angeles Times
4 days ago
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Supreme Court turns away a 2nd Amendment challenge to blue-state bans on assault weapons
WASHINGTON — A closely divided Supreme Court refused Monday to hear a 2nd Amendment challenge to the bans on semi-automatic rifles in Maryland, California and eight other blue states. Gun rights advocates say these AR-15s are owned by millions of Americans, and they argue the 2nd Amendment protects weapons that are 'in common use by law-abiding citizens.' But they fell one vote short of winning a hearing on the question before the Supreme Court. Three conservatives — Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito and Neil M. Gorsuch — voted to hear the 2nd Amendment challenge. But Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh refused for now to cast the key fourth vote. He called the lower court ruling upholding Maryland's ban 'questionable,' but agreed with the majority in turning down the appeal for now. 'In my view, this court should and presumably will address the AR–15 issue soon, in the next Term or two,' Kavanaugh said. The closely watched appeal had been pending since December, and the outcome suggests that the majority, including Chief Justice John G. Roberts, is not ready to strike down state laws that restrict semi-automatic guns. Monday's no-comment orders let stands law in Maryland and Rhode Island that forbid the sale or possession of 'assault weapons' and large-capacity magazines. California adopted the nation's first ban on assault weapons in 1989. Since then, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Washington have enacted similar laws, all of which would have been struck down if Maryland's law were ruled unconstitutional. Lawmakers in California and nine other Democratic-led states say these rapid-fire weapons are especially dangerous and not needed for self-defense. Maryland said its ban applies to 'certain highly dangerous, military-style assault weapons of the sort used in a series of highly publicized mass shootings.' The case tested the reach of the 2nd Amendment and its 'right to keep and bear arms.' For more than a decade, the justices have turned away gun-rights appeals that challenged local or state bans on assault weapons. In 2008, the court ruled for the first time that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to self-defense, but its constitutional rulings since then have been modest in their impact. The justices struck down city ordinances in Washington and Chicago laws that prohibited private possession of handguns, and they ruled states may not deny law-abiding citizens a permit to carry a concealed weapon. In opinion polls, most Americans are opposed to a ban on handgun possession but they support a ban on semi-automatic assault rifles. Maryland passed its ban on 'assault weapons' after the mass shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, where 20 children and six school employees were killed. The law was upheld last year in an opinion written by a prominent conservative judge. Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, a Reagan appointee who was a finalist for a Supreme Court nomination in 2005, said the AR-15, AK-47 and similar rapid-fire rifles are not protected by the 2nd Amendment. 'They are military-style weapons designed for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense,' he wrote in a 9-5 decision by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. 'We decline to wield the Constitution to declare that military-style armaments which have become primary instruments of mass killing and terrorist attacks in the United States are beyond the reach of our nation's democratic processes.' The dissenters said the 2nd Amendment protects the right to the 'arms' that are in common use. 'Today, the AR-15 and its variants are one of the most popular and widely owned firearms in the Nation,' wrote Judge Julius Richardson, a Trump appointee. 'As of 2021, there are at least 28 million AR-style semiautomatic rifles in circulation. For context, this means that there are more AR-style rifles in the civilian market than there are Ford F-Series pickup trucks on the road — the most popular truck in America.' Three years ago, the court said in an opinion by Thomas that the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted based on the nation's history and tradition of gun regulations. However, the two sides in the Maryland case differed on what to glean from that history. Gun-rights advocates said there was no early history of laws banning common firearms. But some judges and state lawyers said the history shows that when new dangers arose—including stored gun powder, dynamite and machine guns—new restrictions were written into law. If so, that would support new laws adopted in response to the danger posed by rapid-fire weapons. The justices denied review in the case of Snope vs. Brown in the fall.
Yahoo
04-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Supreme Court will hear from US gun makers sued by Mexico for $10 billion
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court will hear arguments Tuesday in a $10 billion lawsuit Mexico filed against top firearm manufacturers in the U.S., alleging their business practices have fueled cartel gun violence. The gun makers reject those claims. They appealed to the Supreme Court to overturn a ruling that let the lawsuit move forward even though U.S. law largely shields gun makers from lawsuits. Depending on how the court rules, it could also affect a narrow legal path that helped families of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School secure a $73 million settlement from the gun maker Remington. Here's what to know about the case: Why did Mexico sue U.S. gun companies? Mexico has strict gun laws and has just one store where people can legally buy firearms. But thousands of guns are smuggled in by the country's powerful drug cartels. The Mexican government says 70% of those weapons come from the United States. The lawsuit claims that companies knew weapons were being sold to traffickers who smuggled them into Mexico and decided to cash in on that market. The defendants include big-name manufacturers such as Smith & Wesson, Beretta, Colt and Glock. The lawsuit is still in its early stages, and if the court does side with Mexico it would still have to prove the allegations. What do the gun companies say? The gun makers say there is no evidence the industry allows trafficking and they disagree with Mexico's data about how many weapons originate in the U.S. The Mexican government, not U.S. gun makers, is responsible for enforcing the laws and fighting crime, they argue. The industry is shielded from most civil lawsuits arising from crimes committed using firearms under a 20-year-old law, though Mexico has argued that it doesn't apply to crimes committed outside of the U.S. The gun companies are asking the justices to overturn an appeals court ruling that allowed the case to move forward. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found it fell under an exception to the shield law for situations in which firearm companies are accused of knowingly violating the law. What happens next? That exception has come up in other cases. The victims of the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook argued it applied to their lawsuit because the gun maker had violated state law in the marketing of the AR-15 rifle used on the shooting, in which 20 first graders and six educators were killed. The Supreme Court declined to hear that case. After reaching the $73 million settlement, the families said they hoped it would lead to more safety and accountability. Depending on how the justices rules, their eventual findings could narrow or close that legal path. ___ Follow the AP's coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at
