Appeals Court Upholds Maryland’s ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban

Last updated on August 7th, 2024 at 04:27 pm

The 4th U.S. Circuit of Appeals ruled in favor of Maryland’s self-styled “assault weapons” ban law on Tuesday, Aug. 6.

The case centered around whether the weapons banned under Maryland’s law are protected under the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. A group of Maryland gun owners brought the legal challenge in December 2020, with support from the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

The Maryland law in question includes a list of specific banned firearms as well as “copycat weapons” bearing similar features to the specifically named weapons.

Such “copycat weapons” include any semiautomatic firearm that can accept a detachable magazine and has two of either a folding stock, grenade or flare launcher, or a flash suppressor. Any semiautomatic rifle or pistol with a fixed magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds is also considered a “copycat weapon,” as is a semiautomatic rifle with an overall length of under 29 inches, or a shotgun that has a folding stock.

The plaintiffs in the original lawsuit argued Maryland’s gun law prohibits the possession of many types of firearms in “common use.” The plaintiffs tied this “common use” characterization of certain banned firearms to the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in D.C. v. Heller, in which the majority wrote that the 2nd Amendment protection of the right to keep and bear arms applies to weapons “in common use.”

Judge James Bredar, an appointee of President Barack Obama, presided over the original lawsuit brought before the U.S. District Court for Maryland. Bredar dismissed the original case in February 2021, citing a 2017 ruling in the 4th Circuit Court’s jurisdiction, Kolbe v. Hogan, which upheld Maryland’s “assault weapons” law. FPC indicated that Bredar had acted as expected and that they could then quickly escalate the case up to the appeals court level.

The plaintiffs insisted that the Kolbe decision conflicts with the higher legal precedents set by the Supreme Court in Heller.

A three-judge panel on the 4th Circuit Court upheld Bredar’s ruling in an unsigned opinion in September 2021. The plaintiffs then took the case up to the Supreme Court, which vacated the lower court decisions on June 30, 2022. The Supreme Court effectively sent the case back to the 4th Circuit Court for reconsideration.

The Tuesday decision played out before 15 judges in an en banc panel on the 4th Circuit Court. 10 of the appeals court judges ruled in favor of Maryland’s gun control law. Five of the judges dissented.

• Israeli Military Admits ‘Professional Failures’ in Ambush Killing of 15 Gaza Paramedics
• Video: How The US Military Plans to Turn A Chinese Invasion of Taiwan Into a ‘Hellscape’
• New Footage Emerges of Alleged Gaza Ambulance Convoy Ambush, Appearing to Contradict Israeli Claims
• Video: US Commander Seeks Permission to Shoot Down Cartel Drones Along the Border
• 5 Key Revelations About The CIA In The New JFK Files

Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, wrote the 61-page opinion of the court. In his assessment, Wilkinson argued the gun rights activists who had brought the original case had misconstrued the “common use” phrasing in the 2008 Heller decision.

“The Supreme Court did not posit that a weapon’s common use is conclusive evidence that it cannot be banned. Rather, the Court instructed that ‘the Second Amendment protects only the carrying of weapons that are those ‘in common use at the time,’ as opposed to those that ‘are highly unusual in society at large,”” Wilkinson wrote. “In other words, weapons that are not in common use can safely be said to be outside the ambit of the Second Amendment. But the logic does not work in reverse. Just because a weapon happens to be in common use does not guarantee that it falls within the scope of the right to keep and bear arms.”

Wilkinson further argued that the Supreme Court’s holding in the 2022 case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, was that weapons protected by the 2nd Amendment not only had to be in common use, but used specifically for self-defense. Wilkinson insisted throughout his opinion that popular semi-automatic rifles, like the AR-15, are not well-positioned to be used in self-defense cases but are commonly used in mass shootings.

“While we know that the AR-15 thrives in combat, mass murder, and overpowering police, appellants have failed to demonstrate that the weapon is suitable for self-defense. This is likely because such a showing would be difficult to make,” Wilkinson wrote.

Judge Julius Richardson, an appointee of President Donald Trump, authored the 98-page dissenting opinion of five judges on the en banc panel. Richardson insisted Supreme Court precedent has held that the 2nd Amendment is not only for self-defense, but also includes “defense of the community at large against violence and government tyranny.” He also noted that Supreme Court precedents have made clear that the 2nd Amendment does not only cover activity in a government-organized militia.

Richardson further argued that neither the Heller or Bruen decisions “establish a standalone exception to the Second Amendment for weapons ‘most useful for military service.'”

“Faced with this mountain of evidence, what does the majority do? It ignores it completely. In its place, the majority first constructs a ‘plain-text’ inquiry that has no basis in the Second Amendment’s plain text or the Supreme Court’s precedents. It then applies this test in an exaggerated and hyperbolic fashion divorced from actual facts about the firearms at issue,” Richardson wrote. “Finally, the majority offers a cursory account of the relevant history that crumbles under the slightest scrutiny.”

Both FPC and SAF have indicated they now intend to appeal to the Supreme Court once again.

The Fourth Circuit upheld Maryland’s ban on so-called “assault weapons,” and now we are prepared to fight forward to the Supreme Court. pic.twitter.com/V5m4Fpvf18

— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) August 6, 2024

“The court relied heavily on an ill-conceived distinction between ‘military style’ arms and those appropriate for self defense use. This distinction runs completely contrary to the mandates of Heller and Bruen, and now sets the stage for another petition for SCOTUS review of the case,” SAF wrote.

Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown, by contrast, celebrated the appeal’s court ruling.

“This decision reaffirms our commitment to protecting our communities from weapons of war,” Brown said Thursday. “We will continue to defend common-sense gun safety laws that save lives and prevent senseless tragedies.”