A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld Maryland’s ban on certain semiautomatic weapons, handing a victory to gun control advocates in a closely watched Second Amendment case.
On a 10-5 votesThe 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that Maryland’s law complies with the Supreme Court’s recent expansion of gun rights.
“We refuse to use the Constitution to declare that the military-style weaponry that has become the primary instruments of mass murder and terrorist attacks in the United States is beyond the reach of our nation’s democratic processes,” Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III wrote for the majority. .
One plaintiff has already promised to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.
Maryland enacted the law in 2013 following the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in which 20 children and six adults were killed.
The statute prohibits the possession or sale of assault weapons, defined to encompass dozens of weapons such as AR-15s, AK-47s and semiautomatic rifles equipped with high-capacity magazines. Rapes are a crime that can carry up to three years in prison.
Three Maryland residents, three gun rights organizations and a state-based gun dealer have challenged the law for years, claiming it violates their constitutional protections.
The 4th Circuit upheld the law, but the Supreme Court sent the case back for rehearing after the 6-3 conservative majority issued an expansion of Second Amendment rights two years ago.
In NYSRPA v. Bruen, the court ruled that gun control measures must be consistent with the country’s historical tradition of regulating firearms to be upheld as constitutional.
Wilkinson, an appointee of former President Reagan, said Maryland’s law is still constitutional even under this stricter standard.
“The assault weapons at issue fall outside the scope of protection afforded by the Second Amendment because, in essence, they are military-style weapons designed for sustained combat operations that are inadequate and disproportionate to the need for self-defense,” Wilkinson wrote for the majority.
“Further, Maryland’s law fits comfortably within our nation’s tradition of firearms regulation,” the opinion continued. “It is just another example of a state regulating excessively dangerous weapons as their incompatibility with a legal and safe society becomes apparent, while at the same time preserving avenues for armed self-defense.”
Wilkinson’s opinion was joined by eight other justices, all appointed by Democrats. Another judge agreed that the law was constitutional but refused to adhere to the reasoning of the majority opinion.
Five justices, all appointed by Republican presidents, dissented. Justice Julius Richardson, appointed by former President Trump, wrote in the nearly 100-page dissent that the majority “disregards the wisdom of the Founders and substitutes their own.”
“Although history and tradition support the prohibition of weapons that are dangerous and unusual, Maryland’s ban cannot pass the Constitution because it prohibits the possession of weapons commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” Richardson wrote in the document of almost 100 pages. dissent.
“By holding otherwise, the majority grants states historically unprecedented leeway to restrict the constitutional freedoms of their citizens.”
The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), one of the gun rights groups that challenged the Maryland law, has vowed to take the case to the Supreme Court.
“The FPC will take the Fourth Circuit’s terrible decision to the Supreme Court without delay. Our goal is simple: End all bans on so-called “assault weapons” across the country. And we look forward to doing just that,” FPC President Brandon Combs said in a statement.
The court declined to get involved in the case in a previous stance, and the justices also declined to address the issue when they rejected a challenge to a similar law in Illinois last month.
This story originally appeared on thehill.com read the full story
