search
top

Supreme Court Denies Appeal to Connecticut Assault Weapons Ban Case

The Supreme Court has denied cert in Shew v. Malloy, the challenge to Connecticut’s enhanced assault weapons ban, which was passed after Sandy Hook. This will leave the ban in place. It’s probably the best possible outcome after losing Scalia, so we shouldn’t be too disappointed this was the result. It would have been far worse for cert to be granted and to lose the case, which we probably would have.

Reading the tea leaves a bit, which is always dangerous, this at least tells me the four Dem appointees on the Court probably aren’t interested in taking Second Amendment cases while the court is split four to four.

8 Responses to “Supreme Court Denies Appeal to Connecticut Assault Weapons Ban Case”

  1. Ian Argent says:

    SCOTUS doesn’t want to play chicken? Interesting.

  2. Brad says:

    Perhaps the anti-2nd Amendment faction of the Court realizes that the public would react very poorly if they baldly nullify the 2nd Amendment? Threatening their authority and power?

    Better to let the lower courts take the heat and give the Supreme Court plausible deniability.

    It’s been six years since McDonald v Chicago. We have to give up the idea that the Federal Courts will provide a short cut to restoring 2nd Amendment Rights. The shortest path is now Federal Legislation, which means Hillary must be stopped.

  3. Ian Argent says:

    Could be.

    At this point, I believe Congress could force shall-issue (reword LEOSA to cover everybody, instead of just retired LEOs), and could likewise force reciprocity, using Heller, McDonald, and the enforcement clause of the 14th amendment. Will they?

  4. Richard says:

    They routinely denied cert before Scalia died. And it wasn’t him doing it. Probably Roberts, maybe Kennedy. Maybe both as it takes only four to grant cert. Possible that one of them was making a strategic denial of cert. Why exactly are cert decision secret?

  5. Ian Argent says:

    My theory is that Roberts means what he is on record saying, that if it’s not necessary to decide, it’s necessary not to decide; and that at least one of the anti-gun justices misjudged their fellow justices and though Heller, then McDonald would go the other way. We don’t know if Roberts voted for cert in either case, do we?
    All we know now is that 2 of the Heller 5 voted for cert in one (or more) of the followup cases.

  6. Roger Wilson says:

    As I recall the court contacted the parties involved telling them they would take the case on very narrow grounds. Both sides agreed. I seems to me they didn’t want to go anywhere the bearing of arms part of the second. Now they don’t want to touch the “Assault Weapons” part either. As we all know there is no technical definition of the Assault Weapon. There is a USA definition of an Assault Rifle. They ain’t the same. It appears the anti gun folks still want to confuse the two. Sadly, they are getting away with it.

  7. Chas says:

    Markie Marxist sez: “Everybody knows what an assault rifle is! It’s a rifle, and it has a shoulder thing that goes up!”

  8. scott says:

    No, it is worse than that. Even while Scalia was alive the SC turned down a AW ban, a high-cap mag ban, and NJ’s ban on carrying.

    There weren’t 4 votes even then.

top