The Supreme Court’s inaction allows inconsistent and unconstitutional enforcement, criminalizing people for owning items that are legal in other states
“The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear two cases challenging separate state bans on so-called assault weapons and high-capacity magazines on Monday,” Fox News and other outlets reported. “The court declined to hear cases arising out of Maryland and Rhode Island relating to state regulations on AR-15-style rifles and high-capacity magazines, respectively. The cases had been submitted to the Supreme Court after lower courts upheld the bans in the face of challenges.”
Gun owners who have been following the cases have been let down and outraged by repeated relistings in conference, and seeing SCOTUS then reject addressing fundamentals at the heart of Founding intent for the Second Amendment goes beyond maddening. It’s inexcusable, especially since a proper opinion, that of course such arms are protected, is obvious to anyone who is not ignorant or delusional. What’s also obvious is the strongest voices against that conclusion are well aware such prohibitions are every bit as subversive as they are.
What’s not known is why.
How could a Supreme Court majority agree in the Bruen decision that text, history, and tradition during the time the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were ratified were the standards to be applied, and then refuse to consider clearly unconstitutional bans?
By David Codrea
