Well, sorta. The Supreme Court refused to grant cert to hear the case (Shew v. Malloy), thus letting stand the bans on semi-auto "assault rifles". The ban on magazines over 10 rounds was not challenged. This was not really unexpected as the Friedman case from Illinois was essentially the same and SCOTUS let that stand by denying cert there too.

I'm guessing there's a fair probability that in light of these decisions by SCOTUS some Hawaii legislator will introduce such a ban next year. If Clinton gets elected I'd guess the chances are around 100%. Buckle up.

Saw this on CNN this morning.  In the article, I believe they mentioned that the Supreme Court "upheld the lower court ruling", or something like that.  Forgive my ignorance of the subject, but does the Supreme Court's declining of hearing a case constitute upholding the ruling of a lower court?  My first impression was that they simply refused to hear it, not necessarily ruling either way.  Yeah, the outcome is the same in that the ruling of the lower court stands, but wouldn't that just mean that the ruling of the lower court stands until another part can present it in the future, say if the Supreme Court make up is different.

I admit that I should know more about these subjects, but I hate politics.  A couple of my best friends are attorneys and I'll bounce things off them from time to time, but the conversations usually don't go that deep. 

Saw this on CNN this morning.  In the article, I believe they mentioned that the Supreme Court "upheld the lower court ruling", or something like that.  Forgive my ignorance of the subject, but does the Supreme Court's declining of hearing a case constitute upholding the ruling of a lower court?  My first impression was that they simply refused to hear it, not necessarily ruling either way.  Yeah, the outcome is the same in that the ruling of the lower court stands, but wouldn't that just mean that the ruling of the lower court stands until another part can present it in the future, say if the Supreme Court make up is different.

I admit that I should know more about these subjects, but I hate politics.  A couple of my best friends are attorneys and I'll bounce things off them from time to time, but the conversations usually don't go that deep.

By denying cert SCOTUS "let stand" the lower court ruling. Probably legally different in some way from "upholding" (if they granted cert, heard the case, and then ruled to uphold the lower court decision). I'm not sure if the same case can apply to SCOTUS for cert again should the makeup of the court change favorably, but I'd suspect there might have to be a new suit filed that in some way differed from Shew, OR if a conflicting ruling is issued by a different federal district court there would then be a "circuit split" and that supposedly greatly increases the chance that SCOTUS will take the case in order to create uniformity among the circuits.  Bottom line: the ban was in effect, and the ban will remain in effect for the foreseeable future.

In a side legal note, I see that the NRA law team in Peruta, Michel and Associates have stated that they may appeal to the Ninth Circuit for a "full court en banc" hearing, meaning that all 28 active judges would sit on the case rather than just the 11 as in the recent en banc ruling that there is no constitutional right to concealed carry. The problem is that 1. the Ninth Circuit has NEVER EVER granted a request for full court en banc hearing, and 2. If there were the needed 14 of 28 judges votes to even take the case to full court en banc there never would have been an original en banc preceding that ended up overruling the original three judge panel upholding Peruta's claim against San Diego county because they needed at least 15 votes to take the case en banc. If you see what I mean. The votes aren't and weren't there. I don't get the point of even trying this unless they have inside information that it was a tie and someone has switched votes, but it's quite clear from past decisions and the political affiliations of which presidents appointed how many judges that the Ninth is not anywhere near an even split, but heavily weighted to the liberal anti-firearms civil rights side.

Bottom line, to quote someone from another forum:

TeddyBallgame:

I've never understood why any of our Constitutional rights are governed by the very institution they were put in place to protect us from.

1) By denying cert SCOTUS "let stand" the lower court ruling. Probably legally different in some way from "upholding" (if they granted cert, heard the case, and then ruled to uphold the lower court decision). I'm not sure if the same case can apply to SCOTUS for cert again should the makeup of the court change favorably, but I'd suspect there might have to be a new suit filed that in some way differed from Shew, OR if a conflicting ruling is issued by a different federal district court there would then be a "circuit split" and that supposedly greatly increases the chance that SCOTUS will take the case in order to create uniformity among the circuits.  2) Bottom line: the ban was in effect, and the ban will remain in effect for the foreseeable future.

3) In a side legal note, I see that the NRA law team in Peruta, Michel and Associates have stated that they may appeal to the Ninth Circuit for a "full court en banc" hearing, meaning that all 28 active judges would sit on the case rather than just the 11 as in the recent en banc ruling that there is no constitutional right to concealed carry. The problem is that 1. the Ninth Circuit has NEVER EVER granted a request for full court en banc hearing, and 2. If there were the needed 14 of 28 judges votes to even take the case to full court en banc there never would have been an original en banc preceding that ended up overruling the original three judge panel upholding Peruta's claim against San Diego county because they needed at least 15 votes to take the case en banc. If you see what I mean. The votes aren't and weren't there. I don't get the point of even trying this unless they have inside information that it was a tie and someone has switched votes, but it's quite clear from past decisions and the political affiliations of which presidents appointed how many judges that the Ninth is not anywhere near an even split, but heavily weighted to the liberal anti-firearms civil rights side.

Bottom line, to quote someone from another forum:

TeddyBallgame:

I've never understood why any of our Constitutional rights are governed by the very institution they were put in place to protect us from.

1) Ok.  Got it on the "let stand" part.  That it's probably legally or technically different from hearing the case, ruled that the lower court decision is GTG, etc is what I was thinking.  There are all sorts of technical/legal stuff that I find interesting, but don't have the time nor interest to get into too deeply.  Stuff like dismissed with or without prejudice and what those actually mean.  Before discussing, I had assumed that if a case is dismissed, that you're done.  Didn't know anything about the with or without prejudice part.  I just know that help from a trusted attorney is really valuable. 

2) Yup.  Ban still in effect.  My first impression was that the "let stand" would embolden other states to try similar measures. 

3) Sounds like a case of exploring all options. 

2) Yup.  Ban still in effect.  My first impression was that the "let stand" would embolden other states to try similar measures.   

Shew was the combined cases of New York state and Connecticut, Friedman (which was also denied cert earlier) was versus City of Highland Park, which challenged not only the "assault weapons" ban, but also the over-10-round magazine ban. It was held over for 6 conferences (which some people thought meant it might be granted) until finally denied cert. This was the case where Thomas and Scalia wrote a rather scathing dissent to the denial. Since it only takes 4 votes to grant cert, I took that denial as a bad sign... apparently Kennedy and/or Roberts have bailed on Second Amendment rights beyond ownership of a handgun in one's home.

So it's not just states that will be emboldened to pass such laws, but counties and cities and towns as well. Woohoo! Rhoads and Espero and Green probably already have a boilerplate bill ready that was delivered by Bloomberg.

On the news this morning, they were talking about how the SCOTUS decided not to hear a case regarding whether or not a child born of non-US citizens should be granted US citizenship if born in the US.  They said that "the SCOTUS effectively upheld" the lower court's ruling.  I guess that's the best way to describe it as "effectively upheld".