On November 25th, a final appeal was filed in the Supreme Court against Maryland's ban on “assault weapons” (semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15).
Progressive states like Maryland enjoy the comfort and protection of appeals courts that have so far ruled unanimously that such bans are constitutional. They pay lip service to the Supreme Court's decision in Bruen in 2022 and then devise various “workarounds” to get the desired conclusion. That means private possession of the AR-15, the country's most popular semi-automatic rifle, and its various versions is illegal. They are subject to various sanctions, fines, and imprisonment.
What is an “assault” weapon?
The fraud began after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in 2012, when Adam Lanza shot and killed 26 people, 20 of them children between the ages of 6 and 7. Anti-gun control lawmakers responded by passing a law banning the possession of the popular rifle. The law even misdefined the definition of an “assault” rifle and prohibited possession of “assault” long guns “or copies thereof.” The law defines a “copy” as having a folding stock, a grenade or flare launcher, a flash suppressor, or other innocuous features. These include “semi-automatic centerfire rifles with fixed magazines capable of holding 10 or more rounds” and “overall length less than 29 inches.”
An “assault rifle” is precisely defined as an M16. According to Wikipedia:
The XM16E1 was adopted by the US military as the M16 and was deployed the following year in jungle warfare operations during the Vietnam War. In 1969, the M16A1 replaced the M14 rifle as the U.S. military's standard rifle.
But for anti-gunners, definitions and history don't matter. The agenda is to disarm the American people as a precursor to a full communist/Marxist dictatorship.
The review petition reminded the High Court of its previous position on that definition.
Thirty years ago, this court described semi-automatic AR-15 rifles as “civilian,” “common,” “commonly available,” and “traditionally legal” firearms. Staples v. United States… (1994).
Sixteen years ago, this court affirmed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individual citizens to possess firearms that are commonly used for lawful purposes. District of Columbia v. Heller… (2008).
For the intervening 16 years, semi-automatic rifles remained “commonly available” (Garland v. Cargill … (2024)). Today's AR-15 is “one of the most popular firearms in the United States” (quote from Advanced Intelligence, a likely source on the subject).
“Simple case”
This case should be easy for the Supreme Court to consider. The complaint states:
So this should be an easy case. The Second Amendment protects firearms in general, and the ban on semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 is because semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 are among the most common firearms in the country. It violates the Second Amendment.
But no:
Incredibly, however, in the 16 years since Heller, every appellate court that has considered this issue has adopted a variety of tests that are uniform only in their failure to adhere to the principles established by this court. , concluded that such a ban was constitutional.
Maryland is asking the court to deny the award to give it more time for infiltration, but enough is enough. Lower courts have proven unable to follow Heller's clear guidance, and this court should intervene without delay.
These lower courts are, predictably, generally dominated by anti-gun judges appointed by liberal and Marxist presidents. For example, Judge William Kayatta, who was appointed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals by then-President Barack Obama in 2013, ruled that Maryland's ban was constitutional. Historical regulations regarding gunpowder storage and weapons such as sawed-off shotguns, Bowie knives, and M-16s. ”
Mr. Kayatta ignored the High Court's decision in Bruen, continuing that “unprecedented societal concerns” called for a “more nuanced approach” to the historical parallels called for by Bruen.
This belief is echoed in other decisions on similar bans in the First, Second, Third, and Ninth Circuits, all of which are anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment decisions. I have a bias.
This makes the case ripe for reconsideration by the High Court.
Unfortunately, in addition to (not) following Heller faithfully, one thing the cited opinions have in common is a failure to command a majority of the court in question.
Surprisingly, all circuits that face this problem must be aware that whatever the protected weapons test is, it should be the general use test prescribed by Heller and confirmed by Bruen. It claims (somehow) that it is not.
But lower courts have ignored Bruen.
In seeking some way to uphold the general weapons ban, the court ruled that the weapons were (in the court's estimation) “particularly unprecedentedly lethal” and “unsuitable for self-defense.” It was concluded that it could be prohibited in cases where it is “disproportionate''. or “primarily useful for military service.”
Therefore, they argue, such a ban would not meaningfully affect the Second Amendment.
They can also be prohibited if (again, in the court's estimation) they meet “the need to protect against the greater danger posed by some weapons” but do not pose a “significant burden” to self-defense. (quoted from the First Circuit Court of Appeals).
In summary, the lower appellate court concluded that the ban on semi-automatic firearms was constitutional after all.
The weapon's “usefulness for military purposes” is “unduely dangerous” and there are other “appropriate means” available for self-defense to citizens using other firearms that are not yet prohibited.
The High Court will address the long list of pending review requests on Friday, December 13, and will clarify which review requests it will accept next Monday.
