![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/23-supreme-court.w700.h467-300x200.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court, once again, sidestepped a controversial issue.<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court on June 2 preserved Maryland\u2019s ban on assault-style weapons and Rhode Island’s ban on high-capacity magazines, declining for now to decide if they meet the high court\u2019s controversial bar for gun restrictions.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
To some extent I get it – public confidence in the Supreme Court is not exactly at its peak, and this is one of the more controversial issues to come before it. About the only one MORE contentious would probably be abortion, and they’ve already taken lumps on that.<\/p>\n
Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted that challenges to other bans on assault-style weapons are being considered in lower courts and, “in my view, this Court should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon.”<\/p>\n
Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas said they would have taken up now both Maryland’s ban on assault-style weapons and Rhode Island’s ban on high-capacity magazines.<\/p>\n
Kavanaugh likewise wrote that gun rights advocates have a strong case that because AF-15s are legal in most states, they can be considered to be in “common use” by law-abiding citizens so should be allowed under the court’s past interpretations of the Constitution.<\/p>\n
To not violate the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court has said, a restriction must be grounded in historic tradition. Lower courts have been struggling to apply this standard.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
(Aside: struggling my ass, some states just keep trying to circumvent it. There is a difference.)<\/p>\n
\nGun rights advocates challenging Maryland\u2019s ban said it doesn\u2019t pass that test because AR-15s are one of the nation\u2019s most popular weapons, proof that there\u2019s a history of allowing them.<\/p>\n
Maryland argues the ban is constitutional because the nation has long regulated exceptionally dangerous weapons.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Exceptionally dangerous? Disregarding the ever-valid “there are no dangerous weapons, just dangerous people” I would be a lot more worried about taking a hit from an uncontroversial M1 than an AR-15, but that’s just me.<\/p>\n
\nBut even some of the lower court judges who agreed the ban doesn\u2019t violate the Second Amendment said they need more guidance from the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n
Chief Judge Albert Diaz of the 4th<\/sup> U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the high court\u2019s 2022 ruling \u201chas proven to be a labyrinth for lower courts, including our own, with only the one-dimensional history-and-tradition test as a compass.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0USA Today<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\nTell ya what, Albert, here’s a way out of the maze: “Shall not be infringed.”<\/div>\n<\/div>\nWhat the Supremes NEED to do is clearly and forthrightly rule that the 2nd Amendment is valid, applies in general to all citizens, and applies across the entire country. We deserve a clear decision, not a patchwork of state laws, political posturing, and namby-pamby ducking the issue.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\nMan up. Do the right thing.<\/div>\n