Supreme Court Leaves Assault Weapons Ban Intact


The U.S. Supreme Court Monday handed a legal victory to advocates of banning firearms commonly known as assault weapons.

By leaving a suburban Chicago gun control law intact, the court gave a boost to efforts aimed at imposing such bans elsewhere, at a time of renewed interest in gun regulation after recent mass shootings.

Police say the attackers in San Bernardino used such weapons as did the gunman who attacked a Planned Parenthood clinic two weeks ago in Colorado.

The Supreme Court declined to hear the case after the ban on assault weapons was upheld by both a federal district judge and a federal appeals court.

Semi-automatic weapons are capable of shooting a single round with each pull of the trigger and, consequently, can fire rapidly. Large capacity magazines reduce the need to reload as often.

In rejecting a challenge to the law, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, said “assault weapons with large-capacity magazines can fire more shots, faster, and thus can be more dangerous in the aggregate. Why else are they the weapons of choice in mass shootings?”


Sounds good to me.

Personally always felt semi-auto rifles (and fully auto) for the general public was simply the sign of a bad hunter/shooter who can’t hit his mark the first time. All my guns are lever and/or bolt. Plenty fast for legal uses.


You are forgetting about vermin (raccoon, rats, coyotes, etc) Generally speaking, if you are shooting at vermin, you have more than one target that needs to be removed. Targets that are not going to stay put once you start pulling the trigger



California already bans assault rifles as well as high capacity magazines.

Why didn’t the laws work to protect the people 30 mins from where I live?

Oh yeah…because evil people couldn’t care less about the law.


That’s what my wife is for :wink:

She’d never shot a gun until she met me. Woman is crazy accurate and crazy fast with a lever action .22.


I would never use one for hunting. It’s instead for protection from civil collapse. Yes America will collapse one day. As Rome did and countless empires before.

Act of war, major disaster comes to your neighborhood, what will you do?

It’s insurance. Hopefully won’t ever need it, but prepared if you do.


Or more accurately because he bought his weapons from a state with very limited gun laws (Kentucky).

California’s laws work, as California has the 42nd lowest per capita gun death rate in the nation. However they work even better when all 50 states are on the same page and not helping to subvert one another. That and when the gun manufactures aren’t always working to subvert the intent of the law with workarounds.


No he bought them legally here in California. He legally transferred them.

Then the terrorist. ILLEGALLY. Modified them in countless ways to make them more lethal.

If all 50 states had California’s laws it would have made ZERO difference.

Just as in France their outright ban made ZERO difference…except police were killed because even they were not allowed weapons.

Meth, cocaine, heroine. All illegal. We have a war on drugs even, yet people buy and use this everyday in our neighborhoods.

And you seem naive enough to think that some words on a page will keep criminals from having guns.

It’s insulting. It’s super insulting that you claim California is so safe because of our laws after San Bernardino, Isla Vista, Santa Monica, and so many others.

As for your statistics. Our three strikes law (unique to us) had more to do with that than anything, and even that is being severely undermined.


I’m not an expert on CA law so I don’t know for certain but I did find this.

While California laws typically forbid the sale and possession of rifles of the sort used by the shooters, the assault-style rifles in the attack had a button mechanism to release their ammunition magazines, which made them legal to possess in California – an exception sometimes referred to as the “bullet button loophole.” And some gun makers in California specialize in manufacturing assault-style rifles that comply with California state law.

But even if the bullet button loophole did not exist and possessing assault-style rifles of any kind had been illegal from the get-go, the shooters could have saved themselves the trouble of modifying their weapons by simply traveling to a different state. They could have gotten any number of high-powered, military style rifles, along with high-capacity magazines, in neighboring states.

No one is saying more restrictive gun control laws will prevent every single incident such as what occurred in San Bernadino from ever occurring again. But they sure can’t hurt. The information Padre shared about CA being the nation’s 42nd lowest in per capita gun death rate sure seems to suggest that CA’s gun laws are working more than not.


You shoot rats?:eek: I just poison them with poison pellets that they eat and go away to die. We don’t have raccoons or coyotes here but we do have feral cats which we are allowed to shoot.

Why would you want to shoot to kill/maim raccoons and coyotes. Surely scaring them away is sufficient?


Not at first no. But the less guns out there legally, the less guns that will eventually be out there illegally. Remember, almost all “illegal” guns started life as a legal gun somewhere. It’s not like criminals are importing weapons from Canada and Mexico (in fact with the latter the opposite is quite normally the case).

As for being “insulting” that our tough gun laws along with as you mention 3 strikes, have helped lower gun deaths in the state, I don’t care if you find it insulting. Sometimes the truth hurts.


Well said


Poisoning rats may work in Australia. But you have to remember, this is America. Where a culture of guns runs rampant and in some circles seems to reign supreme. Poison’s not good enough for American rats. We apparently need to blast them away here in the good ol’ US of A.


Yes assault rifles are legal when they are made to not meet the definition of an assault rifle. This entails a magazine lock requiring a tool (typically an unused bullet works) to slow magazine changes as well as the gun must not be allowed to hold more than 10 rounds.

The terrorist in SB modified both aspects. They had 30 round magazines, removed the bullet buttons, and in the case of one rifle, converted it to fully automatic.

You know what would have prevented this?

Caring as much for everyday people as much as we do our president, senators, judges, banks etc…

If schools and places of assembly had armed security like the rest of those places, these attacks wouldn’t happen.

Such was the case in Texas at the Mohammed cartoon thing. And such is the case study that these attacks always 100% are at “gun free zones” and other soft targets.


Because you want schools, churches, baseball games, etc… to have even more armed security than many of them already have? Some solution… looks and sounds like a police state to me.


Exactly, and worse, a police-state run by people who have no legitimate authority.It amazes me that people still think more guns in more hands is the answer when the reality of these events demonstrates the opposite. For example, there was an armed veteran present during the UCC shooting, but he didn’t do anything because he knew that law enforcement would probably think he was the perpetrator. Then there’s the case of the would-be hero in Texas who ended up shooting the car-jacking victim in the head instead of the carjackers. There are all sorts of examples of why allowing a bunch of unregulated and uncoordinated yahoos to run around taking the law into their own hands is a terrible idea.


I am advocating for more police officers and security guards.

I am advocating for us to care as much about our children as our money.

Police state? Not anymore than we currently have, but even so, I’d take it if it meant protection of innocent people from terrorists.

At least the very liberal la times is smart enough to at least entertain the question.

It’s a red herring to talk about unregulated yahoos.


Yes, I shoot rats. Best way to clear out a barn. .410 auto shotgun. Poison pellets can end up killing the chickens. Shoo the chickens out, and then clear the barn.

Did this several times at my aunt’s farm.

And yes, I kill raccoons. I do live in a suburb, but have a chicken coop in the backyard. What raccoons do to chickens if they get into the coop ( and yes, they do that), is, well, pretty graphic.

Can’t legally discharge a firearm, so if see signs near the coop, I trap 'em, and gas them with the minivan, a dryer hose and a tarp.

My aunt would use a shotgun every time she saw one.


I see, we only use the poison pellets in the ceiling and under the house. Very rarely though, only the once when we first moved in here over a year ago. No animals can get at it except perhaps possums and none live around here. And of course snakes, heaps of them around here.

So are raccoons like feral cats? In Australia feral cats are considered pests and farm owners shoot them because they attack native protected species.


The Republican SCOTUS isn’t very good at undoing the damage to our rights done by unconstitutional laws.

I agree with viewing these weapons as insurance.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit