4th Circuit says – Assault weapons can be banned

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 it here

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-1255

Read more here

ABA Journal

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…

More Rights You Should Know

Other Articles