The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has once again turned its back on the Constitution, upholding Maryland’s oppressive Firearms Safety Act of 2013.
This ruling, handed down by a majority of liberal judges, essentially strips law-abiding citizens of their God-given right to self-defense by banning a wide range of so-called “assault weapons,” including the highly popular AR-15 rifle.
Mike Davis of the Article 3 Project expressed his outrage, stating, “9 Democrat judges–along with an older, weak Republican judge–on 4th Circuit is allowing Maryland to disarm citizens. 5 Republican judges, including all 3 Trump appointees, wrote a powerful dissent. The Supreme Court must step in and fix this.”
ICYMI:
9 Democrat judges–along with an older, weak Republican judge–on 4th Circuit is allowing Maryland to disarm citizens.
5 Republican judges, including all 3 Trump appointees, wrote a powerful dissent.
The Supreme Court must step in and fix this. https://t.co/YmH3qx9oBw pic.twitter.com/RIBYvZzEQ9
— Mike Davis (@mrddmia) August 10, 2024
The ruling, authored by Judge Wilkinson and joined by several of his far-left colleagues, claims that military-style weapons like the AR-15 and AK-47, along with the Barrett .50 caliber sniper rifle, are “designed for sustained combat operations” and “ill-suited” for self-defense.
The court further asserts that these firearms “fall outside the ambit of protection offered by the Second Amendment” because they are allegedly more dangerous than other types of weapons typically used for self-defense.
The court’s decision is out of step with the Supreme Court’s more recent ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which struck down New York’s restrictive gun control laws.
In Bruen, the Court made clear that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry firearms in public for self-defense, without requiring citizens to demonstrate a special need. By contrast, the Fourth Circuit’s ruling upholds a law that severely restricts the types of firearms citizens can own, further eroding the right to self-defense.
In his dissent, Judge Richardson, joined by Judges Niemeyer, Agee, Quattlebaum, and Rushing, rightly criticized the majority for its flawed reasoning and its departure from the Constitution’s original intent.
Richardson pointed out that the decision ignores the historical understanding of the Second Amendment, which was designed to ensure that citizens could defend themselves not just against criminals, but against a tyrannical government.
Richardson wrote in his opinion:
“The majority decides that Maryland’s ban is perfectly consistent with the Second Amendment. But the majority’s rationale disregards the Second Amendment and controlling precedent.
Rather than considering the Amendment’s plain text, the majority sidesteps it altogether and concocts a threshold inquiry divorced from the right’s historic scope. To make matters worse, it then misconstrues the nature of the banned weapons to demean their lawful functions and exaggerate their unlawful uses.
Finally, to top it all off, the majority cherry-picks various regulations from the historical record and pigeonholes them into its preferred—yet implausible—reading of our Nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.
I respectfully dissent. 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.
Appellants seek to own weapons that are indisputably “Arms” within the plain text of the Second Amendment. While history and tradition support the banning of weapons that are both dangerous and unusual, Maryland’s ban cannot pass constitutional muster as it prohibits the possession of arms commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.
In holding otherwise, the majority grants states historically unprecedented leeway to trammel the constitutional liberties of their citizens.”
The Firearms Policy Coalition, a gun rights organization that aims to advance gun rights in the United States via legal action, announced that “they’ll be petitioning for cert very soon.”
Amen.
We’ll do our part at @Article3Project to ensure the 6 Republican-appointed justices find and keep their backbones.
(The 3 leftist justices–with 24/7/365 protection with “assault weapons”–don’t believe we mere peasants have the God-given right to protect ourselves.) https://t.co/TOyXjiXFGU
— Mike Davis (@mrddmia) August 10, 2024
You can read the ruling here.
The post Fourth Circuit Upholds Maryland’s So-Called ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban, Allowing the State to Disarm Law-Abiding Citizens appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.