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
Forfeiture Law: SCOTUS and Sixth Circuit Issue Landmark Rulings
Forfeiture Law in Focus: SCOTUS and Sixth Circuit Issue Landmark RulingsThe landscape of forfeiture law has been significantly shaped by recent decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. These rulings, in the cases of United States v...
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...
Other Articles
The Takings Clauses of the United States and Michigan
These clauses protect property rights and maintain a balance between public needs and individual ownership The Takings Clauses of the United States and Michigan Constitutions are pivotal components of property law, ensuring that private property is not seized by the...
Michigan Supreme Court – People of Michigan v. Duff
A seizure may occur when a police vehicle partially blocks a defendant’s egress if thetotality of the circumstances indicate that a reasonable person would not have felt free to leave In the case of People v Duff (July 26, 2024)., the Michigan Supreme Court issued an...
Michigan Supreme Court – Money back for former homeowners
In a landmark decision, the Michigan Supreme Court has ruled that counties cannot retain surplus proceeds from tax-foreclosed property sales, a move poised to return millions to former homeowners. This ruling, stemming from the case Rafaeli, LLC v. Oakland County,...
Komorn Law Case Victories
Just some of our victoriesState / Federal Legal Defense With extensive experience in criminal legal defense since 1993 from pre-arrest, District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme and the Federal court systems. KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550More...6-30-18 United States v Neece -...
Michigan Court of Appeals – Case Summary People v Bosworth
Michigan Court of Appeals - People v. Bosworth Despite these efforts, the jury found the evidence against Bosworth compelling. In the case of People v. Christopher Mychael Bosworth, the Michigan Court of Appeals rendered a decision on July 18, 2024. Bosworth was...
Michigan Court of Appeals – Case Analysis People v. Jackson
Michigan Court of Appeals - People v MICHAEL JACKSON Several critical legal issues emerged during the trial and subsequent appeals process including self defense claim and witness credibility. In a recent decision by the Michigan Court of Appeals dated July 18, 2024,...
Michigan Supreme Court restores wage and sick leave laws
Citizen-initiated proposals aimed at increasing the minimum wage and expanding paid sick leave In a significant ruling, the Michigan Supreme Court has reinstated the original minimum wage and paid sick leave laws that were initially gutted by the legislature in 2018....
SCOTUS Decision Gives Starbucks a Win in Labor Dispute
The decision underscored the principle that only activities that are essential and directly related to an employee's primary job responsibilities are subject to compensation. In a recent decision by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), Starbucks received a...
