A federal appeals court Tuesday upheld Maryland 's ban on "assault weapons," prompting a major pro-Second Amendment legal group to vow to petition the Supreme Court .
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled 10-5 that the weapons ban by Maryland, a 2013 law that was challenged as unconstitutional by the Firearms Policy Coalition, fell outside the scope of the Second Amendment. In response, the FPC promised to file a petition at the high court in light of the "highly flawed" decision.
“FPC will take the Fourth Circuit’s terrible decision to the Supreme Court without delay. Our objective is simple: End all bans on so-called 'assault weapons' nationwide. And we look forward to doing just that,” said FPC President Brandon Combs.
Maryland passed the gun control measure following the 2012 Sand Hook Elementary School shooting in Connecticut, where a Bushmaster AR-15 assault rifle was used to kill 20 children and six adults. The state's law bans dozens of firearms, including the style used by the Connecticut gunman, as well as the AK-47 and the Barrett .50-caliber sniper rifle, and it places a 10-round limit on gun magazines.
Majority finds 'assault-style' weapons are not 'common'
Circuit Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, an appointee of former President Ronald Reagan, wrote in the court's majority opinion that the weapons covered under the ban are "designed for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense."
"Moreover, the Maryland law fits comfortably within our nation's tradition of firearms regulation," Wilkinson wrote. "It is but another example of a state regulating excessively dangerous weapons once their incompatibility with a lawful and safe society becomes apparent, while nonetheless preserving avenues for armed self-defense."
The latest decision comes after the Supreme Court's 2022 New York Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen ruling, which required gun policy to fall in line with the nation's "historical tradition of firearm regulation."
However, the 4th Circuit interpreted the Bruen ruling to find that a weapon "must be 'in common use today for self-defense' to be within the ambit of the Second Amendment," disagreeing with plaintiffs' reasoning that mere possession of a certain type of firearm by a "requisite quantity of Americans" is sufficient.
Roughly 1 in 20 people in the United States own an AR-15, according to a 2023 Washington Post/Ipsos poll. That data suggests that with a U.S. population of 260.8 million adults, around 16 million residents own an AR-15. It is the most popular rifle in the U.S.
"Appellants further contend that all semiautomatic rifles should be categorized as the same type of firearm when conducting a common use inquiry, and thereby disregard the exponential differences in firepower between a small-bore rimfire rifle and a .50 caliber sniper rifle. What is more, appellants do not provide a clear threshold for the number of firearms they believe must be possessed to be in common use," the majority opinion read.
Dissent says majority 'demonizes' AR-15 owners
Circuit Judge Julius Richardson, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, was joined by four others on the bench in a lengthy 100-page dissent that underpinned their belief that the majority's decision ran afoul of Bruen.
Richardson wrote that the mere fact that an AR-15 lacks some advantages of the handgun "does not make it unsuitable for self-defense."
There is not a "one-size-fits-all list of factors for determining whether a gun is proportional and appropriate for self-defense," Richardson said, based on his understanding of the 2008 D.C. v. Heller decision, which established an individual right to own a firearm for self-defense in the home.
"Rather than engaging with the actual facts, the majority trades in tropes and hyperbole to portray the AR-15 as a menacing weapon with no other utility than the slaughtering of enemy combatants and
innocents. Not only is this picture untrue, but it also demonizes the millions of Americans who lawfully keep these weapons to defend themselves and their communities," Richardson added.
The pathway back to the Supreme Court
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court declined to take up the case from a prejudgment posture, opting instead to allow the 4th Circuit to weigh the decision first.
Once the FPC appeals, it will become the first petition in a case regarding "assault weapons" from a final judgment since Bruen in 2022, according to the gun rights group. The high court more recently ruled in Rahimi v. United States, its first gun-related decision since Bruen, that kept in place a federal law restricting domestic violence offenders from possessing firearms.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Meanwhile, the 4th Circuit on Tuesday also handed down a ruling in a separate gun case that rejected a challenge to federal law barring the possession of a firearm with an altered serial number.
Additionally, a federal judge last week ruled that a 2023 Maryland law cannot block licensed gun owners from carrying firearms in bars and restaurants and in private buildings without the owner's permission. However, certain other gun restrictions were upheld, including bans on carrying firearms in hospitals, government buildings, schools, amusement parks, mass transit facilities, casinos, museums, state parks, and stadiums.
Most Popular
Comments / 0