Md. appeals court upholds 'assault weapon' ban: a new challenge to scope of Second Amendment?
A federal appeals court in Maryland has upheld a law banning military-style weapons. If the case goes before the Supreme Court, justices will have to confront whether the weapons deserve protection under the Second Amendment.
High-capacity weapons and hand guns are seen for sale at Capitol City Arms Supply in Springfield, Ill., in 2013. A Maryland law that bans 45 types of military-style weapons was upheld in an appeals court ruling Tuesday.
Seth Perlman/AP/File
A Maryland law banning so-called assault rifles survived its day before a federal appeals court Tuesday, marking a victory for gun control advocates that could bring the question of whether military-style weapons receive Second Amendment protection before the nation鈥檚 highest court.
The US Appeals Court for the 4th Circuit held in a 10-4 ruling听that the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment doesn鈥檛 encompass the ownership of the high-capacity "weapons of war." Drawing on examples of mass shootings in Newtown, Conn.; Orlando; and San Bernardino, Calif., the court ruled听that the military-style weapons听used in some of the nation鈥檚 most violent attacks don't fall under the听right to self-defense.
At its core, the argument examines whether or not weapons such as AR-15s and AK-47s are the kind of firearms necessary for legal purposes, such as self-defense, or if they constitute 鈥渄angerous and unusual鈥� weapons听that have been historically prohibited in some states.
That鈥檚 the question courts have grappled with since the 2008 landmark Supreme Court ruling District of Columbia v. Heller. While the court held that the Second Amendment allowed gun owners to keep firearms for self-defense, it did note 鈥撎齣n somewhat ambiguous terms 鈥撎齮hat the right had its limits: then-Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the opinion for the majority, found support for听"the historical tradition听of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual听weapons.'"
For the 4th Circuit, that piece of Heller was license to uphold Maryland's ban.
鈥淗eller left a lot of questions open, but courts of appeals have been pretty uniform in their decisions,鈥� Joseph Blocher, a law professor at Duke University, tells 海角大神, noting that many courts have ruled that owning such听weapons falls within the Second Amendment, but upheld state laws restricting their use. 鈥淭his case goes a little farther than some in that it holds assault weapons fall outside the Second Amendment. Most other courts have assumed that they fall inside and are still subject to ban.鈥�
Seven states and the District of Columbia have banned semiautomatic rifles, and several have faced legal challenges. Four appeals courts have rejected those challenges. But in saying that such weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment, the听4th Circuit has taken a different approach.
鈥淲e conclude 鈥撎齝ontrary to the now vacated decision of our prior panel 鈥撎齮hat the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are ,鈥� the appeals court wrote in Tuesday鈥檚 decision. 鈥淭hat is, we are convinced that the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are among those arms that are 鈥榣ike鈥� 鈥楳-16 rifles鈥� 鈥撎�榳eapons that are most useful in military service鈥� 鈥撎齱hich the Heller Court singled out as being beyond the Second Amendment鈥檚 reach.鈥�
Heller struck down a Washington, D.C., code that made it illegal to carry an unregistered gun, prohibited registration of handguns, and required that owners of registered weapons keep them unloaded or disassembled until in use for legal, recreational activities.
While the Supreme Court found that ban too expansive and burdensome on those keeping weapons commonly and historically used for self-defense, its take on the legality and place of firearms that resemble military-style weapons听has raised questions in the near-decade since.
The Maryland law, known as the Firearm Safety Act and passed in 2013, makes it illegal to 鈥渢ransport an assault weapon into the State鈥� or 鈥減ossess, sell, offer to sell, transfer, purchase, or receive an assault weapon,鈥� banning 45 types of firearms and placing a 10-round limit on magazines. It was challenged by guns right advocates and upheld by a district court, but struck down by a panel of appeals court judges who believed the law violated the Second Amendment rights of gun owners.
But the full court voted to vacate the prior decision and rehear the case, bringing it back for the court to hear en banc, where the 14-judge bench heard the case.
Tuesday鈥檚 decision drew praise from gun control advocates, but ire from those in favor of weapons rights. 听
"It is absurd to hold that the most popular rifle in America is not a protected 'arm' under the Second Amendment," NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker told the Associated Press. The NRA estimates that between 5 million and 10 million AR-15s are currently owned in the United States.
In the Heller ruling, the Supreme Court suggested there could be support for limiting the types of firearms that should receive legal protection, citing a tradition of prohibiting "dangerous and unusual weapons." But with the AR-15 seeing wide ownership across the country, the Maryland ruling could set itself up to challenge those guidelines.
And while the Supreme Court has declined听to take up several Second Amendment cases, a push from guns-rights activists,听in conjunction with several similar appeals courts rulings, could change that.
鈥淓ventually it鈥檚 going to boil over,鈥� says Stephen Halbrook, an attorney and senior fellow at the nonpartisan Independent Institute who presented an oral argument in the appeal of the Heller case.听鈥淚f you look at what the courts of appeals have done, there鈥檚 been strong dissenting opinions as well.鈥�
If the Maryland law were to appear before the Supreme Court, justices would be forced to answer some of the questions left in the wake of its Heller ruling, such as what constitutes common ownership, and how long a weapon must be barred to become 鈥渉istorically鈥� banned.
鈥淟ike everything about Heller, each of these issues is open to some real interesting and empirically complicated questions that need to be answered,鈥� says Saul Cornell, a professor at Fordham University who specializes in American legal history.听
And as is often the case with gun legislation, passion and empathy have common features in the arguments 鈥� which, gun-rights proponents say, could shape people's opinion of how dangerous military-style weapons are. At the appeals court, for example, opening the decision with descriptions and death tolls of several high-profile shootings brought emotion to the decision, which felt out of place in the legal argument, Dr. Halbrook says.
鈥淭hat was totally an emotional appeal,鈥� he says. 鈥淚f you want to list all the murders in our country that have occurred with handguns, you would need hundreds of pages. There鈥檚 been a lot more carnage from handguns.鈥�
It鈥檚 hard to gauge how the Supreme Court will divide on the case. With Neil Gorsuch nominated for the vacant seat left by Justice Scalia鈥檚 death, the court stands to gain a ninth member who would give it a conservative slant, but experts say it鈥檚 too soon to say if that will result in the appeals court decision being overturned.
While some may argue that military-style weapons have no place among civilians, others counter that the commonly-owned weapons are used less frequently than other weapons for violence. Neither of those stances give real insight as to how the court will view the issue, however.
鈥淭hese are all rational arguments and logical arguments, and I think we鈥檝e all watched enough Supreme Court opinions to realize that鈥檚 not how the Supreme Court always decides things,鈥� Dr. Cornell says.
This report includes material from the Associated Press.