Court RULES in MASSIVE Second Amendment Case!

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

The case was brought by the Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and several Maryland citizens, challenging the constitutionality of the state’s ban on “military-style assault weapons.”

Today the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals FINALLY released its opinion in Bianchi v Wilkinson and upheld Maryland’s ban on commonly owned semiautomatic rifles. The court relied heavily on an ill-conceived distinction between “military style” arms and those appropriate for self… pic.twitter.com/vIxMe2pyfo

— SAF (@2AFDN) August 6, 2024

This ban, which includes the sale and possession of firearms such as the AR-15, AK-47, and Barrett .50 caliber sniper rifle, has been in effect since 2013, following the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting that resulted in the deaths of 20 children and six adults in Connecticut.

FPC LEGAL UPDATE: The en banc Fourth Circuit has upheld Maryland's "assault weapon" ban, saying "we know that the AR-15 thrives in combat, mass murder, and overpowering police", it's "ill-suited for and disproportionate to the objective of self-defense", and that the its low… pic.twitter.com/Oq0XifzXoj

— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) August 6, 2024

“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.”

While eight of the judges supported the ruling, five judges dissented, with one judge arguing in a dissenting opinion that the ban did indeed violate the Second Amendment. Circuit Judge Julius Richardson, in the dissenting opinion,  accused the court’s majority of “cherry-picking” historical regulations to establish a misleading precedent.

“The Second Amendment is not a second-class right subject to the whimsical discretion of federal judges,.” “Its mandate is absolute and, applied here, unequivocal.”

Following the decision, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) president Brandon Combs stated that the group plans to take 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.“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.