Statement from Governor Dan Malloy and Lieutenant Governor Nancy Wyman:
Governor Malloy said, “During tragic times, we acted. When we saw wrong, we did what was right. After enduring a moment as a state that shook our collective conscience and jolted the soul, we banded together and stood up for common sense. We passed one of the toughest, one of the smartest gun laws in the nation. As today shows, common sense has prevailed.
“We appreciate the Supreme Court’s action today. It should be a demonstration to states across the nation that commonsense gun laws not only work, they are Constitutional. We must stand up against mass shootings. We cannot sit idly by and watch tragedy after tragedy, horror after horror. We have the ability to act–the question is whether or not elected officials have the will.“We are safer today because of our gun laws, and I thank the Supreme Court for recognizing that states can be smarter about how we sell guns and what kinds of guns we sell, and that those commonsense steps do not infringe on Constitutional rights. Now, it is incumbent upon Congress to do what’s right and follow Connecticut’s lead in embracing basic steps regarding guns–like universal background checks–that the vast majority of Americans support.”
Lt. Governor Nancy Wyman said, “Connecticut is proud to have passed some of the strongest gun laws in the nation, laws that have wide support among our residents, and that have withstood legal challenge. Connecticut stood up for our residents, and it’s time for Congress to stand up for the American people. I applaud the Supreme Court for their action today.”
They did not reject the challenge. The chose to not hear the case (right now). Many papers worded it like this ‘The U.S. Supreme Court declined Monday to hear a challenge to Connecticut’s ban on semi-automatic rifles commonly called assault weapons ‘.
Thier could be many reasons for this. They may have been too busy to hear what they believe will be a very time consuming case that only affects a few people. They may believe they would have been forced to make a decision they did not want to. They may have believed it was a divisive issue that could have affected the upcoming presidential election in an unfair way.
Either way, this is not a yes/no decision. It is more of a ‘ask again later’ if you can afford it.
BOE,
Many papers accurately reported the Supreme Court failed to hear the case and therefore the lower court ruling, that the ban is constitutionally proper, stands.
And given the timeframe of the Supreme Court schedule, it would not be heard again until, I believe, 2018.
That is one possible theory but the supreme court has heard other cases that it determined were constitutionally proper. Otherwise the Supreme Court would only hear cases that were constitutionally improper. Why would they decide the case was constitutionally proper then choose to NOT hear the case and rule that way?
They would have no way of knowing if the case were proper without hearing it.