Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upholds Maryland’s ban on semi-automatic rifles

---

Defying the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling, the judges claimed that the AR-15 is not “common use” for self-defense — despite the numerous instances that law-abiding citizens have used the weapon to protect themselves and their families against armed home invaders.

---

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled earlier this week that Maryland’s ban on “assault weapons,” including the AR-15, can be enforced, claiming that they are “excessively dangerous” and not in “common use” for self-defense.

Firearm Policy Coalition (FPC), a gun rights group that brought the legal challenge against the ban, immediately announced that it will appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.

Maryland’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” prohibits the sale or ownership of various rifles and magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. Violation of the law could land a person in prison for three years.

Pivotal in any Second Amendment ruling is the Supreme Court’s opinion in New York State Pistol and Rifle Assn. v. Bruen. In that case, the Court found that New York’s oppressive licensing regime was unconstitutional.

It also handed down a test for courts to use when ruling on Second Amendment issues, explaining,

“To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

The Fourth Circuit, in its 10-5 decision upholding Maryland’s ban, ruled,

“We hold that the covered firearms are not within the scope of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, and thus Maryland’s regulation of them can peaceably coexist with the Second Amendment. Moreover, even if the text of the Second Amendment were read to encompass the covered firearms, the statutory provisions at issue would nonetheless be constitutional. Our nation has a strong tradition of regulating excessively dangerous weapons once it becomes clear that they are exacting an inordinate toll on public safety and societal wellbeing.”

The court reasoned that under Bruen, individual self-defense is the purpose of the Second Amendment, but they also interpreted Bruen to mean that firearms “must be ‘in common use today for self-defense’ to be within the ambit of the Second Amendment.”

The Fourth Circuit claimed that these weapons are “military-style weapons designed for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense.”

They argued that the AR-15 has more similarities to military-grade weapons like the M16 than it has differences despite the fact that the AR-15 is not capable of automatic fire and that many have attested that it would never be used in combat. The judges also cited examples of the use of AR-15s in mass shootings.

The assertion that the AR-15 is not in common use for self-defense is spurious at best considering that it is the most popular rifle in the United States, with an estimated 20 million people owning one. Many of those people cite self-defense as the motivation for their purchase.

Indeed, in another court ruling that overturned California’s ban on semiautomatic weapons, U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez noted numerous examples of victims using AR-15s for self-defense, some of these in instances where without such a weapon with a higher capacity magazine, the victim may not have survived.

The Fourth Circuit majority, however, claimed that the popularity of the gun didn’t matter, only that it was ill-suited for self-defense. It argued that a weapon could become popular before legislatures have had time to determine that the weapon is excessively dangerous and regulate it.

Five judges joined in a 100-page dissent.

Judge Julius Richardson argued against the majority’s reasoning, writing,

“Rather than engaging with the actual facts, the majority trades in tropes and hyperbole to portray the AR-15 as a menacing weapon with no other utility than the slaughtering of enemy combatants and innocents. Not only is this picture untrue, but it also demonizes the millions of Americans who lawfully keep these weapons to defend themselves and their communities.”

FPC President Brandon Combs, in announcing the group’s plan to appeal, stated,

“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.”

According to FPC, the appeal will represent the first petition for certiorari involving an “assault weapons” case from a final judgment since the Court’s Bruen ruling in June 2022.

The majority cites instances in which AR-15s have been used in deadly mass shootings. No one disputes the tragedy of these crimes.

The question is, can government ban the sale and possession of semiautomatic weapons just because some people use them to perpetrate a truly detestable horror?

The answer is, No, it cannot.

What bans on semiautomatic weapons do is take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. Consider some instances cited by Benitez in his decision.

Two intruders broke into a family’s home in Florida, pistol whipping the husband. The intruders attempted to kidnap he and his wife’s 11-year-old daughter. Her mother, who was pregnant, got their AR-15 and, in so doing, neutralized the threat. The judge wrote, “It does not require much imagination to think what would have happened next if the woman had lived in California and could not possess such a firearm.”

Benitez recounted the account of a disabled man whose home was broken in to by three armed intruders. He got his AR-15, and killed one of them, wounded another, and caused the other to flee. The disabled man lay wounded when police arrived, but he survived.

The judge mentioned another man who needed 30 rounds from his AR-15 to stop seven intruders who burst into his home firing a gun.

Benitez wrote this regarding the “common use” of AR-15s for self-defense:

“In Uniontown, Pennsylvania, an 81-year old man and his elderly sister were at home when an intruder broke in. In the middle of the ensuing struggle, the victim fired one shot from his gun. The victim said he had never before fired the gun and that it had been sitting on his nightstand for thirty years. Had his gun been an AR-15 he kept under his bed, the State would say that he did not ‘use’ his AR-15 for self-defense during those preceding thirty years. And this Court would disagree. This Court would say that the elderly man ‘used’ his AR-15 for self-defense every night for the thirty years he kept it ready under his bed, including the night of the burglary.

In exactly the same way, the disabled man in Florida who was shot, but shot back with his AR-15, ‘used’ his rifle on the night of his attack and on all of the other nights when his gun sat ready in case of attack. But the State seems to say that citizens have no right to keep an AR-15 for self-defense unless they often use it to shoot attackers. That is incorrect. ‘There is no reason to think that semi-automatic rifles are not effective for self-defense in the home, which Heller explained is a core purpose of the Second Amendment right.”

The Fourth Circuit sees it as irrelevant how many people choose to purchase an AR-15, whether it’s to protect themselves or for another lawful purpose. In its infinite wisdom it believes an AR-15 to be a military weapon and not suited for self-defense.

The scores of those who purchased this gun and the many who have used one to protect the lives of themselves and their families disagree. No matter how infrequently a person needs more than 10 rounds for self-defense in the course of their life is unimportant. The fact is, every single day people are attacked in the United States and sometimes people do need more than 10 rounds to survive.

Accounts of rioters, gang members, and groups of evil people with violent intentions attacking helpless law-abiding citizens are published in the news every day. If every one of those citizens was equipped with an AR-15 with more than 10 rounds, perhaps criminals would reconsider preying on people who are minding their own business.

Whether courts or legislatures like it or not, the AR-15 is the preferred weapon by many for home defense. Those homes are inhabited by single women, parents with children, the elderly, the disabled, and more. Those average Americans don’t have armed guards or a security detail. Most don’t live in gated communities.

Americans have determined that the AR-15 is the best weapon to defend themselves and their families. The government has no right to tell them otherwise.

---

If you like this article and other content that helps you apply a biblical worldview to today’s politics and culture, consider making a donation here.