A pro-gun group asked the Supreme Court on Wednesday to consider a challenge to Maryland’s assault rifle ban after lower courts rejected efforts to overturn the state’s 2013 law.
The Firearms Policy Coalition is fighting the 2013 law that classifies many semi-automatic weapons as illegal “assault weapons.” Earlier this month, the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 10-5 to uphold the law, even as gun advocates sought to cite a recent landmark Second Amendment ruling that some say would lead to the repeal of gun control laws.
“Through this case, the court can and should clarify how lower courts should deal with unconstitutional bans on so-called ‘assault weapons’ and similar laws,” FPC President Brandon Combs said in a statement.
Maryland’s law was originally passed in response to the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, in which a gunman using a Bushmaster AR-15 assault rifle killed 20 children and six adults. Vice President Kamala Harris’ running mate, Governor Tim Walz (D-Minn.), a supporter of stricter gun laws, has expressed his belief that civilians should not be allowed to own weapons like the ones he trained with during his time in the National Guard.
But about 1 in 20 people in the United States owns an AR-15, according to a 2023 study. Washington Post-Ipsos poll. This data suggests that out of a US population of 260.8 million adults, about 16 million residents own an AR-15, making it the most popular rifle in the US
The challenge to Maryland law, known as Snope vs. Brownhas been alternating between appellate courts and the Supreme Court since the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in 2022 Bruen v. New York Rifle & Pistol Assn.which gives courts the opportunity to prove that a gun control measure is consistent with the “history and tradition” of the country’s gun laws.
Shortly after the 6:3 majority decision in Bruen was published, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the 4th Circuit for further consideration in light of the new “historical analogue” precedent. The case, previously known as Bianchi vs Froshwas again presented to the nine justices earlier this year, but the Supreme Court declined to review it, citing the litigation then pending before the 4th Circuit.
District Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, appointed by former President Ronald Reagan, wrote in the court’s majority opinion that the weapons covered by the ban “are designed for sustained combat operations that are inappropriate and disproportionate to the need for self-defense.”
But the five appeals court judges who dissented argued that the Second Amendment is not a “second-class right.”
“The defendants seek to possess weapons that are indisputably ‘guns’ in the plain language of the Second Amendment,” wrote Trump-appointed District Judge Julius Richardson in his dissenting opinion. “While history and tradition support the prohibition of dangerous and unusual weapons, Maryland’s ban is unconstitutional because it prohibits the possession of weapons that law-abiding citizens commonly possess for lawful purposes.”
Maryland Democratic Attorney General Anthony Brown, who has defended the law in court, said earlier this month that the 4th Circuit’s decision “will save lives,” adding that “access to weapons of war that have no place in our communities causes senseless and preventable deaths.”
After the Fourth Circuit recently ruled on the dispute, the FPC and other plaintiffs, such as Maryland gun owner David Snope, believe the justices should determine whether the 2013 law meets the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment requirements.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
“There is no legitimate basis for the Fourth Circuit’s conclusion that the semi-automatic rifles most commonly used in the United States are not ‘guns’ protected by the Second Amendment,” the FPC president said.
The Washington Examiner has contacted Brown’s office for comment.
