Article (Archive)
Twenty-five states attorneys on Thursday called on the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down Maryland’s ban on semi-automatic weapons, including AR-15-style rifles.
In urging action, the states said that it is time for the high court to set straight how it views the Second Amendment at a time when lower courts are handing out conflicting opinions.
“This case presents the court with a unique chance to provide additional guidance to the lower courts about the scope of the individual right protected under the Second Amendment,” said the brief urging the court to take up Bianchi v. Frosh.
At issue is a 2013 Maryland ban on many popular sporting weapons and large-capacity magazines. The United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit upheld the law in September, prompting an appeal.
The 25 states argue that the law has the potential to spill over into their states, where guns are popular and protected by mostly conservative lawmakers.
“Americans do not require approval from a local jurisdiction to exercise their constitutional rights,” said Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich. “We must vigorously oppose this type of misguided overreach at all levels of government,” he added.
Brnovich and West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey are leading the effort.
The Second Amendment Foundation, already involved in the case, was quick to praise them. “We are truly gratified that the top law enforcement officers in fully half of the states in our country have signed onto this amicus brief,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “The fact that all of these top legal officers support our challenge to Maryland’s egregious law should carry considerable weight, and underscore the validity of our case.”
The conservative court is seen as being friendly to gun cases, and the issue could turn on the court’s landmark 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller ruling written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia. In that, the court reinforced the right to arms.
In their brief, Morrisey, Brnovich, and the top attorneys from 23 other states said that the weapons banned in Maryland are not only popular, but having them makes their states safer.
Their key argument was that in having a federal appeals court support the Maryland law, it is possible that other courts will follow suit.
“Maryland’s law goes too far. States may enact reasonable firearm regulations that do not categorically ban common arms core to the Second Amendment. But the challenged law fails because it is broadly prohibitive rather than regulatory. The Court should not allow Maryland to invade its own citizens’ constitutional rights. And it should not permit the Fourth Circuit to imperil the rights of citizens in other states with its analysis, either,” they said.
“If left untouched, Maryland’s unconstitutional ban on firearms commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, and others like it, threatens the constitutional rights of all Americans. If a sufficient number of states are allowed to impose such bans, it could pave the way for future courts to find that such weapons now owned by millions are no longer in common lawful use,” warned the attorneys general.
The brief provided a rich history of weaponry, noting that many military-style firearms targeted by Maryland were adapted from civilian use guns, such as the 1911 pistol.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Commentary
Twenty-five states attorneys on Thursday called on the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down Maryland’s ban on semi-automatic weapons, including AR-15-style rifles.
In urging action, the states said that it is time for the high court to set straight how it views the Second Amendment at a time when lower courts are handing out conflicting opinions.
“This case presents the court with a unique chance to provide additional guidance to the lower courts about the scope of the individual right protected under the Second Amendment,” said the brief urging the court to take up Bianchi v. Frosh.
At issue is a 2013 Maryland ban on many popular sporting weapons and large-capacity magazines. The United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit upheld the law in September, prompting an appeal.
The 25 states argue that the law has the potential to spill over into their states, where guns are popular and protected by mostly conservative lawmakers.
“Americans do not require approval from a local jurisdiction to exercise their constitutional rights,” said Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich. “We must vigorously oppose this type of misguided overreach at all levels of government,” he added.
Brnovich and West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey are leading the effort.
The Second Amendment Foundation, already involved in the case, was quick to praise them. “We are truly gratified that the top law enforcement officers in fully half of the states in our country have signed onto this amicus brief,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “The fact that all of these top legal officers support our challenge to Maryland’s egregious law should carry considerable weight, and underscore the validity of our case.”
The conservative court is seen as being friendly to gun cases, and the issue could turn on the court’s landmark 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller ruling written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia. In that, the court reinforced the right to arms.
In their brief, Morrisey, Brnovich, and the top attorneys from 23 other states said that the weapons banned in Maryland are not only popular, but having them makes their states safer.
Their key argument was that in having a federal appeals court support the Maryland law, it is possible that other courts will follow suit.
“Maryland’s law goes too far. States may enact reasonable firearm regulations that do not categorically ban common arms core to the Second Amendment. But the challenged law fails because it is broadly prohibitive rather than regulatory. The Court should not allow Maryland to invade its own citizens’ constitutional rights. And it should not permit the Fourth Circuit to imperil the rights of citizens in other states with its analysis, either,” they said.
“If left untouched, Maryland’s unconstitutional ban on firearms commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, and others like it, threatens the constitutional rights of all Americans. If a sufficient number of states are allowed to impose such bans, it could pave the way for future courts to find that such weapons now owned by millions are no longer in common lawful use,” warned the attorneys general.
The brief provided a rich history of weaponry, noting that many military-style firearms targeted by Maryland were adapted from civilian use guns, such as the 1911 pistol.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Commentary
)
