FYI: Not even the GOP's take on the Second Amendment covers assault rifles, a.k.a. 'weapons of war'
newsdepo.com
It’s a good moment to remember that assault weapons can, and should, be legally banned. We’ve already got a sterling legal template for that argument. Just a year ago, the Fourth Circuit—which hears federal appeals from Maryland, North Carolina, SoutFYI: Not even the GOP's take on the Second Amendment covers assault rifles, a.k.a. 'weapons of war'
It’s a good moment to remember that assault weapons can, and should, be legally banned. We’ve already got a sterling legal template for that argument. Just a year ago, the Fourth Circuit—which hears federal appeals from Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia—issued a landmark gun control opinion upholding a ban on 45 kinds of assault weapons and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The court heard the case “en banc,” meaning that instead of allowing a three-judge panel to have the final word, a majority of the Fourth Circuit’s active judges decided that the entire court should weigh in. The result: A 10-4 ruling determining that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to “weapons of war.” The case arose out of a challenge to Maryland legislators’ post-Sandy Hook law. In response to Newtown and other mass shootings, the duly elected members of the General Assembly of Maryland saw fit to enact the State’s Firearm Safety Act of 2013 (the “FSA”), which bans the AR-15 and other military-style rifles and shotguns (referred to as “assault weapons”) and detachable large-capacity magazines. The plaintiffs in these proceedings contest the constitutionality of the FSA with a pair of Second Amendment claims — one aimed at the assault weapons ban, the other at the prohibition against large-capacity magazines — plus Fourteenth Amendment equal protection and due process claims. The Fourth Circuit issued a banner ruling shutting the plaintiffs down. We conclude ... that the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are not protected by the Second Amendment. That is, we are convinced that the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are among those arms that are “like” “M-16 rifles” — “weapons that are most useful in military service” — which the Heller Court singled out as being beyond the Second Amendment’s reach. Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war that the Heller decision explicitly excluded from such coverage. Read more