The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, has Upheld Maryland’s Assault Weapons Ban, Reinforcing that AR-15s, characterized as ‘Weapons of War,’ are Not Protected under the Second Amendment for Civilian Ownership.
This significant Decision underscores the Distinction between the AR-15’s Military Design and Functionality and its fully Automatic Versions, which are already heavily Regulated.
The full Fourth Circuit took up the challenge to Maryland’s 2013 Firearm Safety Act en banc, hearing Arguments before all 14 active Judges in their March Session. The step to Rehear the Case was marked as unusual, because the Three-Judge Panel originally assigned, had Not yet issued a Ruling.
The Panel was presumed to be leaning towards Invalidating the Ban under the U.S. Supreme Court’s New Framework for Second Amendment Cases, outlined by the Bruen Decision.
The Ban’s Oopponents, including the Firearms Policy Coalition and several Gun Owners and Gun Stores, argued that the Act, which Banned 45 types of Weapons including the popular AR-15, infringed upon Americans’ Right to Keep and Bear Arms. However, Maryland’s Goal of Protecting Public Safety, was a significant factor in the Ban’s Original upholding.
Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown (D) stated, “Mass shootings and assault weapons go hand-in-hand. Too many lives have been taken because of these weapons of war that do not belong on our streets or in our communities.”
The Bruen Decision established a New Precedent, dictating that Gun Restrictions must Not only align with a State’s Interest, but also with the Historical Context of Firearms Regulation at the time the Second Amendment was Ratified in 1791, or when the 14th Amendment extended those Rights to the States in 1868. I disagree with that Decision, it is a Living Document.
However, Maryland’s Law has withstood this Scrutiny according to the Fourth Circuit, drawing on Historical evidence supporting the Ban.
A Ruling by a U.S. District Court on October 19th, 2023, overturned California’s long-standing Assault Eeapons Ban as Unconstitutional, arguing No Historical precedent for such a Restriction.
Judge Roger Benitez compared Modern Assault Weapons to the Bowie Knife, characterizing them as “dangerous but useful” and Essential for Lawful Purposes. The Decision sparked Strong Rebukes from California Officials, with Governor Gavin Newsom (D), criticizing Benitez’s Ruling as a “love letter to the gun lobby.”
This Contrast in Judicial Interpretation Demonstrates the ongoing Legal and Ideological Battle over Assault Weapons in America.
As States like Maryland and California, navigate the intricate Landscape of Gun Regulation and Constitutional Rights, these Cases serve as Pivotal Reference points for future Debates and Legal Battles.
Arguments in Maryland revolved around whether the Banned Weapons fall within the Scope of the Second Amendment following the Bruen Ruling.
Maryland’s Assistant Attorney General Robert Scott (D), pushed for a Historical perspective, arguing that Weapons uniquely Dangerous and Suited to Criminal uses, like Assault Rifles, have historically been Banned. In contrast, the Plaintiffs presented Statistics showing the Prevalence and Common use of Semiautomatic Weapons for Self-Defense, emphasizing that Millions are in Circulation in the U.Ss.
The Discussion also ventured intoHhypotheticals about the Limits of the “common use” Standard, with questions posed about the Public Purchasing Grenade Launchers, to which Plaintiffs’ Attorney Peter Patterson, countered that such Scenarios are unlikely due to the Common Sense of American People.
The Court hears Appeals from the Nine Federal District Courts in: Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia. These State could now Ban the AR-15.
NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker
No comments:
Post a Comment