The U.S. Supreme Court\u00a0declined to review this case<\/a>\u00a0in May, when the full 4th Circuit was still considering it. Maryland officials argued the Supreme Court should defer to the lower court before taking any action, but the plaintiffs said the appeals court was taking too long to rule.<\/p>\n Maryland passed the sweeping gun-control measure after a 20-year-old gunman killed 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut in 2012. It bans dozens of firearms \u2014 including the AR-15, the AK-47 and the Barrett .50-caliber sniper rifle \u2014 and puts a 10-round limit on gun magazines.<\/p>\n The Firearms Policy Coalition Inc., one of the plaintiffs challenging Maryland\u2019s law, said it would again ask the Supreme Court to review the case.<\/p>\n \u201cOur objective is simple: End all bans on so-called \u2018assault weapons\u2019 nationwide. And we look forward to doing just that,\u201d coalition president Brandon Combs said in a statement.<\/p>\n The 4th Circuit\u2019s full roster of judges agreed to consider the case after a three-judge panel heard oral arguments but hadn\u2019t yet issued a ruling.<\/p>\n The weapons banned by Maryland\u2019s law fall outside Second Amendment protection because they are essentially military-style weapons \u201cdesigned for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense,\u201d Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III wrote in the court\u2019s majority opinion.<\/p>\n \u201cMoreover, the Maryland law fits comfortably within our nation\u2019s tradition of firearms regulation,\u201d Wilkinson wrote. \u201cIt is but another example of a state regulating excessively dangerous weapons once their incompatibility with a lawful and safe society becomes apparent, while nonetheless preserving avenues for armed self-defense.\u201d<\/p>\n Eight other 4th Circuit judges joined Wilkinson\u2019s majority opinion. Five other judges from the Virginia-based appeals court joined in a dissenting opinion.<\/p>\n The law\u2019s opponents argue it\u2019s unconstitutional because such weapons are already in common use. In his dissenting opinion, Judge Julius Richardson said the court\u2019s majority \u201cmisconstrues the nature of the banned weapons to demean their lawful functions and exaggerate their unlawful uses.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThe Second Amendment is not a second-class right subject to the whimsical discretion of federal judges. Its mandate is absolute and, applied here, unequivocal,\u201d Richardson wrote.<\/p>\n Wilkinson said the dissenting judges are in favor of \u201ccreating a near absolute Second Amendment right in a near vacuum,\u201d striking \u201ca profound blow to the basic obligation of government to ensure the safety of the governed.<\/p>\n \u201cArms upon arms would be permitted in what can only be described as a stampede toward the disablement of our democracy in these most dangerous of times,\u201d Wilkinson wrote.<\/p>\n Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown praised the court\u2019s decision.<\/p>\n \u201cThe Court\u2019s decision today will save lives,\u201d Brown said in a statement. \u201cAccess to weapons of war that have no place in our communities causes senseless and preventable deaths.\u201d<\/p>\n The latest challenge to the assault weapons ban comes under consideration following a\u00a02022 U.S. Supreme Court decision<\/a>\u00a0that \u201ceffected a sea change in Second Amendment law.\u201d That 6-3 decision signified a major expansion of gun rights following a series of mass shootings.<\/p>\n With its conservative justices in the majority and liberals in dissent, the court struck down a New York law and said Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. It also required gun policies to fall in line with the country\u2019s \u201chistorical tradition of firearm regulation.\u201d<\/p>\n The 4th Circuit previously declared the ban\u00a0constitutional in a 2017 ruling<\/a>, saying the guns banned under Maryland\u2019s law aren\u2019t protected by the Second Amendment.<\/p>\n \u201cPut simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war,\u201d Judge Robert King wrote for the court in that majority opinion, calling the law \u201cprecisely the type of judgment that legislatures are allowed to make without second-guessing by a court.\u201d<\/p>\n The court heard oral arguments in the latest challenge in March. It\u2019s one of two cases on gun rights out of Maryland that the federal appeals court took up around the same time. The other is a challenge to Maryland\u2019s\u00a0handgun licensing<\/a><\/p>\n requirements.<\/p>\n Separately, a federal judge last week ruled that a 2023 Maryland law can\u2019t prohibit licensed gun owners from carrying firearms in bars and restaurants and in private buildings without the owner\u2019s permission. However, Chief U.S. District Judge George Russell upheld other gun restrictions in the state law. Those include bans on carrying firearms in health care facilities, schools, government buildings, amusement parks, mass transit facilities, race tracks, casinos, museums, state parks and stadiums.<\/p>\n Maryland lawmakers approved the law last year in response to the U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down a New York law that was very similar to Maryland\u2019s \u201cgood and substantial reason\u201d standard for permits to carry concealed handguns.<\/p>\n Source: \u00a0![\"Associated](\"http:\/\/worldjusticenews.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/Associated-Press-logo.png\"){kind=logo}
<\/a> apnews.com<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"