A federal appeals court upheld Maryland’s decade-old ban on military-style firearms, commonly referred to as assault weapons, in a significant ruling on Tuesday, August 6. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 10 to 5 decision, rejected arguments from gun rights groups that the 2013 law is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
This ruling comes amid ongoing debates about gun rights and regulations, particularly following the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in *New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen*, which emphasized a historical approach to evaluating gun laws.
Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, writing for the majority, stated that Maryland’s law does not infringe upon Second Amendment rights because the banned semiautomatic rifles, such as the AR-15 and AK-47, are “military-style weapons designed for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense.” He argued that the law fits within the historical tradition of firearms regulation in the U.S., allowing states to regulate particularly dangerous weapons when their incompatibility with a lawful and safe society becomes evident.
The Maryland law was enacted in response to the tragic Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in 2012, which claimed the lives of 20 children and six adults. It bans numerous semiautomatic weapons and imposes a 10-round limit on gun magazines. In his detailed 183-page ruling, Wilkinson emphasized that the court would not “wield the Constitution to declare that military-style armaments… are beyond the reach of our nation’s democratic processes.”
The ruling has sparked strong reactions, with Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown praising the decision as a measure that will “save lives” by limiting access to weapons of war that contribute to mass shootings.
Conversely, dissenting judges, including Judge Julius Richardson, criticized the majority for disregarding the Founders’ intentions and argued that the ban infringes upon the rights of law-abiding citizens who possess these firearms for legitimate purposes. Richardson contended that the majority’s interpretation of the Second Amendment creates a dangerous precedent, allowing states to impose unprecedented restrictions on constitutional liberties.
The Firearms Policy Coalition, one of the plaintiffs challenging the law, has announced plans to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, aiming to end all bans on so-called “assault weapons” nationwide. The court’s ruling aligns with a broader trend of legal challenges to gun regulations across the country, as advocates on both sides of the debate continue to navigate the evolving landscape of gun rights and public safety.
This ruling marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing discussion about gun control in the U.S., highlighting the tensions between individual rights and community safety as the nation grapples with the implications of firearms regulations in the wake of increasing gun violence.
