‘Excessively dangerous’: Federal court upholds Maryland’s ‘assault weapons’ ban

A U.S. appeals court upheld a Maryland law banning assault-style weapons on Tuesday, ruling that the law does not violate the Second Amendment.

The Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and several Maryland citizens brought up the case challenging the constitutionality of the state’s “military-style assault weapons” ban, prohibiting the sale and possessions of the AR-15, AK-47, and Barrett .50 caliber sniper rifle, among others. The ban has been in place since 2013 following the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting that killed 20 children and six adults in Connecticut.

“The assault weapons at issue fall outside the ambit of protection offered by the Second Amendment because, in essence, they are military-style weapons designed for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense,” Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson wrote in the decision. “Moreover, the Maryland law fits comfortably within our nation’s tradition of firearms regulation. It 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.”

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) president Brandon Combs said in a statement following the decision that the group plans on taking the suit to the Supreme Court.

“FPC will take the Fourth Circuit’s terrible decision to the Supreme Court without delay. Our objective is simple: End all bans on so-called ‘assault weapons’ nationwide. And we look forward to doing just that,” Combs wrote.

The plaintiffs had brought the case to the Supreme Court in May, arguing that the lower court was taking too long to decide, but the Court rejected the case at the time after Maryland Officials argued the appeals court should rule first, according to the Associated Press.

Five judges dissented from the ruling, and in a dissenting opinion, one judge argued the ban did violate the Second Amendment and accused the court’s majority of “cherry-pick[ing]” historical regulation to create a false precedent.

“The Second Amendment is not a second-class right subject to the whimsical discretion of federal judges,” Circuit Judge Julius Richardson wrote in the dissenting opinion. “Its mandate is absolute and, applied here, unequivocal.”

The court’s decision was backed by eight additional judges.

The Second Amendment Foundation, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and Maryland Attorney General did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline, and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW

Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!