Quantcast
Connect with us

Supreme Court declines to review challenges to more restrictive gun laws

Published

on

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Supreme Court on Monday declined to wade into the politically volatile issue of gun control by leaving intact three court rulings rejecting challenges to federal and state laws.

The court’s decision not to hear the cases represented a loss for gun rights advocates, including the National Rifle Association, which was behind two of the challenges.

ADVERTISEMENT

The first case involved a challenge by the NRA to a Texas law that prevents 18-20 year olds from carrying handguns in public. It also raised the broader question of whether there is a broad right under the Second Amendment to bear arms in public.

The second NRA case was a challenge to several federal laws and regulations, dating back to 1968, that make it illegal for firearms dealers to sell guns or ammunition to anyone under 21.

The third case was on the narrow question of whether consumers have the legal right to challenge laws that regulate the sale of firearms. The challenge to a federal law that restricts the interstate transport of guns, and a related Virginia law, were filed by several District of Columbia residents who wished to obtain guns via neighboring Virginia.

The court has yet to decide whether there is a right to carry guns in public, a question left unanswered in its two most recent gun-related decisions.

In the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller case, the court held that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guaranteed an individual right to bear arms. Two years later in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the court held that the earlier ruling applied to the states.

ADVERTISEMENT

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Howard Goller)

[Image via AFP]

ADVERTISEMENT

Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Critics of sweeping policy changes always make one huge mistake: Robert Reich

Published

on

In last Wednesday night’s Democratic debate, former South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg charged that Senator Bernie Sanders’ policy proposals would cost $50 trillion. Holy Indiana.

Larry Summers, formerly chief White House economic advisor for Barack Obama, puts the price tag at $60 trillion. “We are in a kind of new era of radical proposal,” he told CNN.

Continue Reading

2020 Election

Bernie Sanders campaign accepts apology from MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews: ‘We got to get past it’

Published

on

MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews on Monday apologized to the Bernie Sanders campaign after comparing his dominance in the first three states of the 2020 presidential nomination to the fall of France to the Nazis in World War II.

Sanders senior advisor Chuck Rocha was asked on Fox News for response.

"Look, we all get hot and say things in the moment, I'm glad Chris apologized," Rocha said. "We got to move on and get past it, I'm glad he said what he had to say, I'm tired of folks on Twitter fighting with each other, it's time to win this election."

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1232099452531331072

Continue Reading
 

2020 Election

‘Breathtaking fiscal hypocrisy’ of the GOP may win Trump reelection: Nobel economist

Published

on

Donald Trump was blasted for his economic policies by Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman -- who worries it just might work to get the president reelected.

"It may have slipped by you, but last week Donald Trump suggested that he may be about to give U.S. farmers — who have yet to see any benefits from his much-touted trade deal with China — another round of government aid," Krugman wrote in The New York Times. "This would be on top of the billions in farm aid that Trump has already delivered, costing taxpayers several times as much as Barack Obama’s auto bailout — a bailout Republicans fiercely denounced as 'welfare' and 'crony capitalism' at the time."

Continue Reading
 
 
close-image