# Supreme Court declines to hear gun cases **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 28, 2017, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-gun-cases/802964 "2017-11-28T16:38:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2017, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-gun-cases/802964/1 "2017-11-28T16:38:53Z")
According to [this story](https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/nov/27/scotus-upholds-ban-assault-weapons-open-carry/), the Supreme Court declined to hear two gun control cases, thereby allowing to stand gun control laws in Maryland and Florida. Not trying to debate, but weren’t cases like this the reason why people wanted a Conservative on the Court? I kept seeing how “Appointing Gorsuch” was one of the few things that caused people to vote for Trump. But it seems like on the first test, the Court declines to hear the cases. Are there some legal or other reason that make not hearing these cases a good idea? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2017, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-gun-cases/802964/2 "2017-11-28T16:49:21Z")
SCOTUS generally only hears cases which it considers to be of great public importance, or where there is a split among the lower courts. The court has pretty consistently refused to hear gun control cases since Heller and McDonald. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2017, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-gun-cases/802964/3 "2017-11-28T16:49:23Z")
It takes four justices to vote to accept a case. These gun control cases would be likely to set a precedent with a nationwide effect. One line of reasoning as to why the court did not muster the 4 votes needed to grant cert is that neither the Conservative wing nor the Liberal wing of the court has enough confidence in being able to get the 5 votes necessary so that “their side” wins the case and sets the precedent they would prefer. Conservatives hope Trump might have a chance to replace Ginsburg or another liberal leaning justice with a conservative pick. Liberals might fear that cert is granted and then a vacancy opens and Trump gets a nominee that could move the court further to the right. ---
**Author:** ![AlsoNamedBort](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alsonamedbort/32/3213_2.png) [@AlsoNamedBort](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AlsoNamedBort)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2017, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-gun-cases/802964/4 "2017-11-28T16:53:52Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > It takes four justices to vote to accept a case. Is there any record of these votes? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2017, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-gun-cases/802964/5 "2017-11-28T17:00:29Z")
> [@AlsoNamedBort](#): > > Is there any record of these votes? Internally, yes. But unless a Justice dissents from a vote to grant (or deny) certiorari and writes a written opinion (in which case the justices who voted yes will generally join in the opinion, and those who don’t can be assumed to have voted the other way), the votes are not published and are essentially secret. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2017, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-gun-cases/802964/6 "2017-11-28T17:01:02Z")
> [@AlsoNamedBort](#): > > Is there any record of these votes? No. Occasionally the justices will publish a dissent to denial of cert so it can be inferred those writing or joining would have voted to grant. Gorsuch preserved the ideological balance at SCOTUS so Gorsuch wasn’t expected to do anything more than maintain the status quo. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2017, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-gun-cases/802964/7 "2017-11-28T17:03:50Z")
> [@AlsoNamedBort](#): > > Is there any record of these votes? No. Not typically. On rare occasion one justice or another might make a statement arguing that cert should have been granted in a case which was rejected. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2017, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-gun-cases/802964/8 "2017-11-28T17:05:04Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Gorsuch preserved the ideological balance at SCOTUS so Gorsuch wasn’t expected to do anything more than maintain the status quo. Ah, okay. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2017, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-gun-cases/802964/9 "2017-11-28T17:43:45Z")
I did some poking around regarding the Maryland law … found that the Maryland State Constitution _does not_ guaranty the individual’s right to own a gun … and it seems to me the Supremes are reluctant to weigh in on cases where such a right doesn’t exist at the State level (noting Washington DC doesn’t have a State Constitution) … it’s a bit of a stretch using the 2nd Amendment to _require_ States to maintain their own military forces … if Maryland doesn’t want a “well regulated militia”, then they don’t have to have one … The issue presented to the Supremes was whether the State’s case against high capacity magazines was held to a high enough standard … maybe the Supremes thought that was for the Maryland legislature to decide … ---
**Author:** ![nelliebly](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nelliebly/32/5422_2.png) [@nelliebly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nelliebly)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2017, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-gun-cases/802964/10 "2017-11-28T18:17:35Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > I did some poking around regarding the Maryland law … found that the Maryland State Constitution _does not_ guaranty the individual’s right to own a gun … and it seems to me the Supremes are reluctant to weigh in on cases where such a right doesn’t exist at the State level (noting Washington DC doesn’t have a State Constitution) … it’s a bit of a stretch using the 2nd Amendment to _require_ States to maintain their own military forces … if Maryland doesn’t want a “well regulated militia”, then they don’t have to have one … > > The issue presented to the Supremes was whether the State’s case against high capacity magazines was held to a high enough standard … maybe the Supremes thought that was for the Maryland legislature to decide … The U.S. Constitution has supremacy over state laws. Therefore, an individual in Maryland or any other state already has the right to bear arms guaranteed–permission at the state level would merely be redundant. The wording of the Second Amendment has been the source of controversy for years, but to my knowledge, it’s never been interpreted as requiring states to have militias. Remember that the Bill of Rights is in place to protect the rights of individuals; only the Tenth Amendment even mentions states, and even then it puts them secondary to people. ---
**Author:** ![Quercus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/7ab992/32.png) [@Quercus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quercus)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2017, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-gun-cases/802964/11 "2017-11-28T18:29:32Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > According to [this story](https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/nov/27/scotus-upholds-ban-assault-weapons-open-carry/), the Supreme Court declined to hear two gun control cases, thereby allowing to stand gun control laws in Maryland and Florida. > > Not trying to debate, but weren’t cases like this the reason why people wanted a Conservative on the Court? I kept seeing how “Appointing Gorsuch” was one of the few things that caused people to vote for Trump. But it seems like on the first test, the Court declines to hear the cases. > > Are there some legal or other reason that make not hearing these cases a good idea? If you’re looking for a political explanation (and I’m not saying other explanations aren’t correct), it’s that the Conservatives on the court, like Republican leadership, care far, far, more about Class War than they do about Culture War. Sure, gun nuts vote sometimes, but it’s rich people and rich corporations that provide the invitations to cushy junkets for Justices (and the cushy jobs for relatives, former clerks, etc.). And, since there’s relatively low rabble-rousing value in striking down low-profile laws during a Republican administration, why bother? ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2017, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-gun-cases/802964/12 "2017-11-28T18:54:33Z")
> [@nelliebly](#): > > The U.S. Constitution has supremacy over state laws. Therefore, an individual in Maryland or any other state already has the right to bear arms guaranteed–permission at the state level would merely be redundant. The wording of the Second Amendment has been the source of controversy for years, but to my knowledge, it’s never been interpreted as requiring states to have militias. Remember that the Bill of Rights is in place to protect the rights of individuals; only the Tenth Amendment even mentions states, and even then it puts them secondary to people. This is an open question still … as you say, the wording of the 2nd Amendment is controversial … However, the Maryland law prohibits a specific “arm” … and the legal standard long established is whether a specific piece of equipment is “normal and necessary” for a well regulated militia … such that owning a sawed off shut gun is _not_ protected under the 2nd Amendment and is currently all but completely banned for individual ownership … I just wanted to clarify the issue presented to the court … whether Maryland needs to be held to a higher standard when making this determination that high capacity magazines are neither normal nor necessary for the individual gun owner … and the court’s “wait and see” attitude towards states’ “experiments with democracy” concerning gun control … If pumping ten rounds through your AR-15 doesn’t do the job … I’m not sure how another ten will be any better … ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2017, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-gun-cases/802964/13 "2017-11-28T18:57:26Z")
> [@Quercus](#): > > If you’re looking for a political explanation (and I’m not saying other explanations aren’t correct), it’s that the Conservatives on the court, like Republican leadership, care far, far, more about Class War than they do about Culture War. Sure, gun nuts vote sometimes, but it’s rich people and rich corporations that provide the invitations to cushy junkets for Justices (and the cushy jobs for relatives, former clerks, etc.). And, since there’s relatively low rabble-rousing value in striking down low-profile laws during a Republican administration, why bother? Another political factor is that there have been several recent public shootings. Now is not a great time for judicial activists to be overturning gun control laws. 2018 is already going to be an uphill election for Republicans. ---
**Author:** ![Flyer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/flyer/32/7298_2.png) [@Flyer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flyer)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2017, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-gun-cases/802964/14 "2017-11-28T22:28:22Z")
> [@nelliebly](#): > > The U.S. Constitution has supremacy over state laws. Therefore, an individual in Maryland or any other state already has the right to bear arms guaranteed–permission at the state level would merely be redundant. The wording of the Second Amendment has been the source of controversy for years, but to my knowledge, it’s never been interpreted as requiring states to have militias. Remember that the Bill of Rights is in place to protect the rights of individuals; only the Tenth Amendment even mentions states, and even then it puts them secondary to people. The Bill of Rights originally applied ONLY to the federal government. States could, and very often did, have their own bill of rights, but not necessarily the same ones. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2017, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-gun-cases/802964/15 "2017-11-29T02:10:51Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > it’s a bit of a stretch using the 2nd Amendment to _require_ States to maintain their own military forces … if Maryland doesn’t want a “well regulated militia”, then they don’t have to have one … I’m not so sure about that. Check Article II. > [@The Founding Fathers](#): > > The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States I read that as a given that the States have militias and\* ipso facto\*, if you’re a state, you have a militia. Reasonable people may disagree, but I’d note that Maryland has had a state militia since 1634. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2017, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-gun-cases/802964/16 "2017-11-29T02:51:08Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Not trying to debate, but weren’t cases like this the reason why people wanted a Conservative on the Court? **Moderating** If you didn’t want to debate, it would have been better not to ask for political opinions in the OP. Moved to GD. Colibri General Questions Moderator ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2017, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-gun-cases/802964/17 "2017-11-29T02:56:21Z")
Well, I didn’t want to debate the pros and cons of a conservative on the Court, and I think \*\*Bone’s \*\*answer was a factual answer. But okay, if you think so. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2017, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-gun-cases/802964/18 "2017-11-29T04:21:27Z")
> [@Quercus](#): > > If you’re looking for a political explanation (and I’m not saying other explanations aren’t correct), it’s that the Conservatives on the court, like Republican leadership, care far, far, more about Class War than they do about Culture War. Sure, gun nuts vote sometimes, but it’s rich people and rich corporations that provide the invitations to cushy junkets for Justices (and the cushy jobs for relatives, former clerks, etc.). And, since there’s relatively low rabble-rousing value in striking down low-profile laws during a Republican administration, why bother? Also, if they actually won the culture war, then they wouldn’t be able to frighten their base. It’s important to keep the tension at just the right level. ---
**Author:** ![Icarus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/icarus/32/72_2.png) [@Icarus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Icarus)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2017, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-gun-cases/802964/19 "2017-11-29T15:15:45Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > Also, if they actually won the culture war, then they wouldn’t be able to frighten their base. It’s important to keep the tension at just the right level. There is truth in that. Some issues are best left unsolved - that way we’ve always got a handy wedge issue for raising money and attracting votes. It may look like politics is about winning, but it also looks a lot like it’s about permanent battle. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2017, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-gun-cases/802964/20 "2017-11-29T15:23:13Z")
> [@kunilou](#): > > I’m not so sure about that. Check Article II. > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by The Founding Fathers > > The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States > > I read that as a given that the States have militias and\* ipso facto\*, if you’re a state, you have a militia. Reasonable people may disagree, but I’d note that Maryland has had a state militia since 1634. The Maryland Defense Forces {[website](http://mddf.maryland.gov/index.aspx)} makes this statement: > [@](#): > > State Defense Forces operate under the command of the Governor, as state Commander-in-Chief, and fall under the operational control of the state Adjutant General. State Defense Forces receive no federal funds and are supported entirely by the state. Also, from [32 U.S.Code Sec 109(c)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/32/109): > [@](#): > > In addition to its National Guard, if any, a State, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, or the Virgin Islands may, as provided by its laws, organize and maintain defense forces. A defense force established under this section may be used within the jurisdiction concerned, as its chief executive (or commanding general in the case of the District of Columbia) considers necessary, but it may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the armed forces. The National Guard appears to be funded by Federal tax dollars and are under the command of the POTUS when called up … State Defense Forces are separate entities and, as Federal Law specifically states, cannot be called up and put under the command of the POTUS … what I don’t know is whether National Guard members have to bring their own M-16’s or if their unit provides them with a government-owned gun … The issue presented to the SCOTUS was whether Maryland was held to a high enough standard of scrutiny when they defended their right to only allow 10 round magazines for their own mounted calvary or brass band … Article II of the US Constitution is irrelevant in this matter … ===== I guess no one is going to bother looking up the details for the Florida law? … then we’re agreed, the citation in the OP is fake news … > [@](#): > > Are there some legal or other reason that make not hearing these cases a good idea? Yes … separation of powers … SCOTUS will not intervene where the state legislature is explicitly given the right to decide under both US Law and the State Constitution … plus both the trial court and the full appellant court got the ruling right … no need for SCOTUS to waste their time … [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-gun-cases/802964.md?page=2)