Federal Court Quietly Rules ‘Assault Rifles’ Not Protected By 2nd Amendment
Original Article | Author: Matt Agorist
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the Second Amendment does not provide protection for what it deemed assault weapons, nor does it protect any magazine larger than 10 rounds.
Annapolis, MD — While Americans watched the 2018 Olympics and mainstream media put on scripted town hall meetings to demonize law-abiding citizens who own guns, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia handed down a blow to the Second Amendment.
In a 10-4 ruling, the federal court ruled that the state of Maryland’s ban on 45 different “assault” weapons and its 10-round limit for magazines was not a violation of the citizens’ constitutional rights. The ruling was not without harsh dissent, however.
“Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war,” Judge Robert King wrote for the court, adding that the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller explicitly excluded such coverage, according to NBC.
“It’s unthinkable that these weapons of war, weapons that caused the carnage in Newtown and in other communities across the country, would be protected by the Second Amendment,” Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh, who spearheaded the movement, said.
“It’s a very strong opinion, and it has national significance, both because it’s en-banc and for the strength of its decision,” Frosh said.
As NBC reports, however, Judge William Traxler issued a dissent. By concluding the Second Amendment doesn’t even apply, Traxler wrote, the majority “has gone to greater lengths than any other court to eviscerate the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.” He also wrote that the court did not apply a strict enough review on the constitutionality of the law.
“For a law-abiding citizen who, for whatever reason, chooses to protect his home with a semi-automatic rifle instead of a semi-automatic handgun, Maryland’s law clearly imposes a significant burden on the exercise of the right to arm oneself at home, and it should at least be subject to strict scrutiny review before it is allowed to stand,” Traxler wrote.
Elizabeth Banach, executive director of Marylanders to Prevent Gun Violence, says this ruling is “overwhelming proof that reasonable measures to prevent gun violence are constitutional,” adding that it doesn’t go far enough.
“Maryland’s law needs to become a national model of evidence-based policies that will reduce gun violence,” Banach wrote in a statement.
Sadly, the court entirely ignored the Supreme Court case of District of Columbia v. Heller which determined that the Second Amendment protects weapons that are “in common use at the time for lawful purposes like self-defense.”
