This case is about whether the Act’s general prohibition on the sale and possession of certain “assault weapons,” are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
An en banc federal appeals court upheld Maryland’s ban on assault-style weapons in a 10-5 decision Tuesday.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, ruled that military-style weapons are not shielded by the Second Amendment as they are intended for prolonged combat scenarios and do not align with the requirements for self-defense.
– Define self defense and what is one defending, a home, a family. a city, a nation and against whom, a single person, a mob, an invasion? –
Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III authored the majority opinion, with the support of eight other justices, while a tenth justice expressed agreement with the outcome.
The 4th Circuit previously upheld the Maryland law in a 2017 decision, but the U.S. Supreme Court rejected part of the appeals court’s approach when it ruled in a different 2022 case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, according to the appeals court.
In the new decision, Wilkinson concluded that the 2013 Maryland law
“fits comfortably within our nation’s tradition of firearms regulation.”
The Fourth Circuit ruled in favor of the state, agreeing that AR-15-style weapons are military-style firearms that are not protected by the Second Amendment
even though the second amendment states
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms , shall not be infringed.”
Maryland enacted its assault weapons ban in 2013 after a shooter used a semi-automatic rifle in the 2012 mass killing of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.
The 2013 law is an example of states regulating “excessively dangerous weapons” when their “incompatibility with a lawful and safe society becomes apparent,” he wrote.
In his dissent, Judge Julius N. Richardson said the Second Amendment “is not a second-class right subject to the whimsical discretion of federal judges. Its mandate is absolute and, applied here, unequivocal.” His dissent was joined by four other judges.
Read more here
What’s going on out there…
- Colorado clerk urges Supreme Court to block trial over voting machine password leak
Former Mesa County clerk-recorder Tina Peters claims she has constitutional immunity from prosecution by “hostile state actors.” - Montana Supreme Court finds parental consent law unconstitutional
Montana minors have a right to make reproductive health care decisions privately, without parental interference, the justices ruled. - No bonus for growing weed
A marijuana farm worker cannot win his breach-of-contract suit over a $100,000 bonus he says he’s owed for achieving a “healthy harvest of 1,400 pounds of dry cannabis crop.” The contract is void and unenforceable because “manufacturing” marijuana is a federal crime. - Matthew Perry’s assistant among 5 people, including 2 doctors, charged in ‘Friends’ star’s death
Meanwhile back at the ranch…
Legal Counsel and Your Rights
When facing legal challenges, particularly in criminal cases, it is advisable to seek legal counsel immediately.
An experienced attorney can provide guidance on how to navigate interactions with law enforcement while safeguarding your constitutional rights.
Since 1993 our expert legal defense in navigating criminal law matters and protecting your constitutional rights are what we eat for breakfast everyday.
Contact Komorn Law PLLC if you’re ready to fight and win.
Research us and then call us.
More Rights You Should Know
Supreme Court Opinion – Created federal agencies need judicial oversight
Summary of the Opinion in Loper Bright Enterprises v. RaimondoIn Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court addressed the enduring precedent set by Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which has shaped administrative law for...
Carjacking is a Federal Offense
Carjacking is a Federal OffenseCarjacking, the act of forcibly stealing an occupied vehicle, has long been a concern for public safety. It was a local and state issue until a series of violent incidents in the early 1990s that carjacking became a federal...
Other Articles
When Can Your Silence Be Used Against You in a Legal Situation?
US Supreme Court - Salinas v. TexasWhen Can Silence Be Used Against You? In the realm of criminal law, the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution grants individuals critical protections, including the right to remain silent and the right against...
Supreme Court 8-1 Gun Possession Decision Changes Second Amendment
Supreme Court 8-1 Gun Possession Decision Changes Second Amendment Landscape Forever!Issue: Whether 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), the federal statute that prohibits a person from possessing a firearm if he has been convicted of “a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term...
Facial Recognition and Wrongful Arrests
Facial RecognitionHow Technology Can Lead to Mistaken-Identity Arrests Facial recognition technology has become increasingly prevalent in law enforcement, but its use raises critical questions about civil liberties and accuracy. One landmark case sheds light on the...
People v. Chandler Case: Protecting Fourth Amendment Rights
Court of Appeals of Michigan PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javarian CHANDLER, Defendant-Appellant. No. 368736 Decided: June 27, 2024Before: Borrello, P.J., and Swartzle and Young, JJ. Introduction In the People v. Chandler case, the Michigan...
What are Miranda Rights?
What are Miranda Rights?Miranda Rights, also known as the Miranda warning, are the rights given to people in the United States upon arrest. “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law…” These rights stem...
What is the Exclusionary Rule?
What is the Exclusionary Rule?The Exclusionary Rule is a legal principle in the United States that prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution. Specifically, it applies to evidence obtained through an...
Government Drones in Your Life – Yes, They Made up a Reason
Long Lake Township v. Maxon The Costs Outweigh Benefits in Exclusionary Rule Application and the Slippery Slope of Fourth Amendment ProtectionsThe recent decision by the Michigan Supreme Court in Long Lake Township v. Maxon represents a significant shift in the...
Supreme Court Opinion – Created federal agencies need judicial oversight
Summary of the Opinion in Loper Bright Enterprises v. RaimondoIn Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court addressed the enduring precedent set by Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which has shaped administrative law for...
