Supreme Court won't hear challenge to city's assault weapons ban

Richard Wolf | USA TODAY

Show Caption Hide Caption Voices: Los Angelinos on how guns have affected their lives People in Los Angeles talk about what part guns have played in their lives and if they think there should be any new gun control laws.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court's refusal Monday to hear a challenge to a Chicago suburb's ban on semiautomatic "assault" weapons keeps similar bans in place from Massachusetts to Hawaii — but not without complaint from two conservative justices.

Acting only days after two Muslim terrorists killed 14 people and wounded 21 others in San Bernardino, Calif., the high court declined to reconsider two lower courts' rulings that the ban was constitutional.

The action, hailed by gun control advocates, signaled that the majority of justices agree with the lower courts, or at least feel it's a matter to be left up to state and local governments. Similar bans are on the books in California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland, Connecticut and Hawaii.

The court denied a petition, backed by the Illinois State Rifle Association, that sought review of the ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines in Highland Park, Ill. Such weapons have been used in several mass shootings across the country, including those in 2012 that killed 26 children and staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and 12 people at a Colorado movie theater.

"We moved forward with this ordinance with memories of Sandy Hook in our minds," Highland Park Mayor Nancy Rotering said after the court action. In the wake of the San Bernardino shootings, she said, "there is a need and an opportunity" for other communities to enact similar prohibitions.

Still, gun sales in the wake of the mass shootings and fears of terrorism continue to climb. November marked the fifth straight month of rising background checks — 2.2 million — recorded by the FBI. On Black Friday, one of the busiest shopping days of the year, a record 185,345 Americans underwent background checks.

And since the San Bernardino rampage, retailers have reported yet another spike in sales, similar to what happened after the Sandy Hook shootings three years ago.

Lower federal courts have ruled that statutes such as Highland Park's are not at odds with the Supreme Court's rulings in 2008 and 2010 permitting handguns to be kept at home for self-defense. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in District of Columbia v. Heller that the court was not upholding “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas said Monday, however, they would have taken the case. Thomas wrote a blistering, six-page dissent from the court's refusal to hear Arie Friedman's challenge to the gun ban.

"Roughly 5 million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles," Thomas wrote. "The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons."

Gun control proponents praised the justices' decision. Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said the court "sided with a community that has taken action to protect itself from the type of violence we’ve seen in San Bernardino, on college campuses and in movie theaters."

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit ruled 2-1 in April that the city's ban was reasonable. "Unlike the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns, Highland Park’s ordinance leaves residents with many self‐defense options," the court majority said.

"If a ban on semi‐automatic guns and large‐capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting and makes the public feel safer as a result, that’s a substantial benefit," Judge Frank Easterbrook, who was appointed to the appeals court by President Ronald Reagan, wrote.

Judge Daniel Manion dissented from that ruling. "While most persons do not require extraordinary means to defend their homes, the fact remains that some do," he said. "Ultimately, it is up to the lawful gun owner and not the government to decide these matters."

In recent years, the justices have stayed out of state and local disputes over gun rights. In June, they declined to review San Francisco's law requiring that handguns be disabled or locked up when they aren't being carried. And in 2013, the court refused to consider a challenge to a New Jersey law barring most residents from carrying guns in public. That issue may come back to the high court again soon.

Proponents of gun rights expressed hope that the justices would agree to hear a case soon. "It is only a matter of time before the Supreme Court takes a case, sets things straight, and properly subjects this and similar unconstitutional laws to renewed challenge," said Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle & Pistol Association.

Another petition, asking the justices to consider a Massachusetts ban against citizens possessing stun guns for self-defense, remains pending before the court.

Contributing: Kevin Johnson