People Have A 'Fundamental Right' To Own Assault Weapons, Court Rules
Certain semiautomatic firearms deserve the highest level of protection the Constitution allows, says appellate court.
JAE C. HONG/ASSOCIATED PRESS
A federal appeals court on Thursday said Maryland's 2013 assault weapon ban, passed in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, must be held to a stricter constitutional standard.
In a major victory for gun rights advocates, a federal appeals court on Thursday sided with a broad coalition of gun owners, businesses and organizations that challenged the constitutionality of a Maryland ban on assault weapons and other laws aimed at curbing gun violence.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit said the state's prohibition on what the court called "the vast majority of semi-automatic rifles commonly kept by several million American citizens" amounted to a violation of their rights under the Constitution.
"In our view, Maryland law implicates the core protection of the Second Amendment -- the right of law-abiding responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home," Chief Judge William Traxler wrote in the divided ruling.
Provisions that outlaw these firearms, Traxler wrote, "substantially burden this fundamental right."
Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, who recently suspended his Democratic presidential campaign, signed Maryland's Firearm Safety Act of 2013 in the wake of the school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, which spurred similar initiatives in other Democratic-leaning states.
The legislation mostly targets specific kinds of semi-automatic firearms -- such as AR-15s and AK-47s -- and large-capacity magazines, and adds certain registration and licensing requirements.
But gun rights advocates, including the National Rifle Association, quickly moved to challenge these laws in the courts, claiming that the restrictions they imposed on lawful gun ownership were overly broad and weren't proven to save lives.
"This case was a major victory for the NRA and gun rights advocates."Adam Winkler, UCLA law professor
The legal attacks have largely failed. Last October, a federal appeals court in Manhattan upheld the most iconic of these laws -- those passed in New York and Connecticut in direct response to the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown. And in December, the Supreme Court declined to review a ruling out of Illinois that upheld a similar ban on assault weapons.
The high court's reluctance to intervene in these disputes has left the Second Amendment in a bit of a state of flux. Since the Supreme Court established in 2008and 2010 that the amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for self-defense within the home, judges have struggled to apply those decisions to the newer spate of gun legislation. And inconsistent rulings and standards across the country have left the scope of the law unclear.
When the Supreme Court refused to take up the Illinois case, Justice Clarence Thomas complained that the Second Amendment was being relegated to "a second-class right."
"If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing," he wrote, and added that those earlier decisions enshrining the right to gun ownership shouldn't be expected to "clarify the entire field."
I equate the wisdom of this ruling with the new Lewisburg ordinance.
ReplyDeleteonly a man who feels cross dressers should be able to go in womens restrooms would have a problem with a rifle. Better to blame the gun than the owner.
DeleteYou are full of it. I am apposed to unlimited gun "rights" as I am to unlimited bathroom rights. The reason is that, contrary to NRA-type propaganda, guns do kill people, 30,000 each year in this country. 85,000 more are wounded each year. When coroners do autopsies of corpses, they find bullets, not other people. It has been only in the last fifty years that the Second Amendment has been applied to the public. Gun nuts always point to the second part of the Amendment, but conveniently omit the first part. The Second Amendment as written was intended to apply to the possession of guns by state militias. More guns and deadlier guns such as assault files are not necessary for home protection. They will result in more massacres as are all to frequent in the news these days. Japan, on the other hand, has practically no gun deaths. This is due in part to their rejection of gun "rights" as well as having a higher developed society. Japan incidentally ranks higher than the United States on all education levels, and your comment is perfect proof of what I am saying.
DeleteGuns are in no way s bad thing.
ReplyDeletePeople who use them for illegal purposes are however bad.
We won our independence partially due to militias.
They generally had thier own guns.
In Israel and some of the nordic nations o people will pick up military personal hitchhiking carrying selective fire guns aka machine guns .
Crime in these nations s re low.
We have issues here mainly thug mentality that results in increased crime. That is thr real issue. Not the gun but the person.
Our nation is great pbut our peoples special intrest groups and leaders are often fools.
Did you know that Americans own more guns than any other country, approximately 300,000,000 with a new gun being manufactured every ten seconds? Perhaps you can explain why America has practically the highest crime rate in the world.
DeleteFor your information guns are not as prevalent in the Nordic nations and Israel as you imply. In Norway, Sweden and Finland people need a special permit and a very good reason just to buy a gun. The ownership of guns there is much lower than in the U.S. The same is true for Israel. People can get a special permit to buy a gun there if they live in dangerous areas, but not quite so easy in safe areas such as Jerusalem. America has the highest gun ownership in the world. America also has the highest crime rate in the world. Germany is second with a rate one-sixth that of the U.S.
DeleteThe second amendment is about the need for civilians (the militia) to have parity of weaponry with the government. In 1789 that might have been a muzzle-loading flintlock, today it must extend to whatever weaponry a rogue government might use to enforce tyranny.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting to observe how people distort history to serve their own purposes. The militias of 200 years ago have no counterpart today. The closest comparison is the National Guard. The Bible notes that people will know a tree by its fruit. Here is some of the fruit: Nicholas Kristof has done a study which concluded that more Americans have died from guns sine 1968 than have died in all of our wars from all causes. I have seen these figures and they are consistent with my other research. No matter how many halos and angel wings that you and others try to adorn guns with, the results will not change.
DeleteThe case referenced above is pyrrhic at best and will be certainly short lived. Two other federal circuits have already ruled that bans on assault weapons are constitutional. Both of these cases were appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the appeals, over the strong protests of Justices Thomas and Scalia. You will recall that Justice Thomas was nominated to the Court for reasons other than intelligence or accomplishments. This is surprising because there are more Republicans on the bench and they usually vote very conservative. Apparently the majority realizes that assault rifles are going too far, and they were content with the decisions in those cases. Result - the bans stand. This case will certainly be appealed as well, and the Supreme Court will in all likelihood hear this appeal. The 4th Circuit case will be reversed. Incidentally, the 4th Circuit case applies only in those states that are min the 4th Circuit and not to all states.
ReplyDelete