In 2013, Maryland took the nearly unprecedented step of banning "assault weapons" including the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle. The ban was immediately challenged and its been tied up in the courts ever since. The gun grabbers scored a major, if temporary victory yesterday, however, when the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 10-5 to uphold the ban, somehow declaring it constitutional. The challenge to the ban was originally organized by the Firearms Policy Coalition, which said that they would immediately appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court. Given the more conservative court's recent track record, Maryland's ban doesn't appear to have a promising future, but you can never take anything for granted these days. (Baltimore Sun)
A federal appeals court upheld Maryland’s ban on assault-style weapons Tuesday in an opinion that found regulating “excessively dangerous weapons,” including the AR-15, compatible with the Second Amendment.
The judges of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 10-5 to affirm a lower court decision upholding the ban. The full 4th Circuit heard the case in March.
The Firearms Policy Coalition, an organization that helped bring the lawsuit over Maryland’s ban, vowed to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. This is the first time the justices have considered taking up a final decision in an assault weapons case since their consequential 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, according to the group.
The 4th Circuit is attempting to use a loophole left open in the Supreme Court's ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen. The Attorney General is claiming that Maryland's ban is constitutional because there is a "historical precedent" for such restrictions. He argues that " legislatures have taken steps historically to protect the public as increasingly dangerous weapons began posing a risk." As examples, he cites bans on sawed-off shotguns and certain types of knives.
Personally, I've never understood why anyone would want a sawed-off shotgun apart from use in committing a crime. Particularly when using any typical birdshot loads, the pellets would disperse too quickly to be of much use at any significant range. Even when firing slugs, the accuracy would be in the tank. It's really only useful if you're standing within a foot or two of your target. But that doesn't mean I support a ban on such shotgun modifications. It's still a firearm that is "commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes," as the Supreme Court said. The Second Amendment generally doesn't deal with knives in most court cases.
It's difficult to see how this ruling stands up on appeal in light of the SCOTUS ruling in Bruen. I can understand and accept bans and restrictions on other potentially dangerous products such as explosives. Those don't fall under the traditional understanding of firearms, as in "keep and bear arms." They can be extremely dangerous and their proper use generally involves a lot more training than your typical firearm. I don't believe the courts would grant civilians permission to walk around with a grenade. (I'll make a confession. I have a grenade. But it's a German WW2 model that my dad brought back from the war and it's been gutted, so it's not really useful as anything other than a club.)
Returning to Bruen for a moment, the Supreme Court was fairly clear in holding that "historical precedent" does not hold any real weight when balanced against the plain wording of the Second Amendment. If someone comes up with new, unconventional weapons that turn out to be inherently dangerous in previously unforeseen ways, we can certainly have that discussion. But the reference to firearms that are "commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes" is important in more than one way. If the majority of the people who keep and bear a particular type of firearm - including AR-15 style rifles - are not breaking the law and using them for any legal activity ranging from hunting to self-defense, then the firearms themselves are not only covered by the Second Amendment, but they are no more "inherently dangerous" than any other firearm. If someone shoots you with a legally purchased (or even stolen) 12-gage shotgun loaded with a slug, they will arguably do significantly more damage to you than a round from an AR-15. So not only do the arguments in favor of Maryland's "assault weapons" ban fly in the face of recently established Supreme Court precedent, but they really don't even pass the smell test of common sense. This ban needs to be struck down, and I am convinced that it will be before too very long.
