Acujeff
NES Member
HALF OF U.S. ATTORNEYS GENERAL WANT SCOTUS TO HEAR 2A CASE
BY DAVE WORKMAN
Late last month, something remarkable—perhaps even historic—happened, but it was really only reported in any detail by the firearms media.
Twenty-five state attorneys general—that’s half of all top state legal officials in the country—signed what is called an Amicus Curiae (“Friend of the Court”) brief urging the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to accept a Writ of Certiorari in the case of Bianchi, et. al. v. Frosh, et.al., a challenge to Maryland’s ban on so-called “assault weapons.”
SCOTUS may not announce right away whether it will take the Maryland case. It still has to produce a decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the case on carry outside the home.
Plaintiffs in the case against Maryland are the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its sister organization, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, plus the California-based Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., Field Traders LLC, David Snope, Micah Schaefer and Dominic Bianchi, the latter for whom the lawsuit is named. Defendant Brian E. Frosh is the Maryland Attorney General. Other defendants are Col. Woodrow W. Jones, III, secretary of the State Police; R. Jay Fisher, sheriff of Baltimore County, and Anne Arundel County Sheriff Jim Fredericks, all in their official capacities.
“Although Heller held that the right to keep and bear arms extends to firearms that are ‘in common use’ for ‘lawful purposes,’ the Fourth Circuit held that ‘weapons most useful in military service’ are ‘outside the ambit of the Second Amendment’ without regard to whether these same weapons are also in common use for lawful purposes,” the brief says.
“Leaving Maryland’s ban in place,” the brief warns, “emboldens other States to enact similar bans, reducing the number of modern sporting rifles and similar firearms owned by the public—and thereby tilting the scales of Heller analysis. Developments will come less in the form of reasoned and independent judicial analysis, and more in the form of hasty enactments informed by a desire to strike while the iron is hot.”
“On its face, the Fourth Circuit’s novel standard leads to absurd and confusing results. For instance, the Model 1911 .45 caliber pistol may be considered a weapon ‘most useful in military service’ given the military used it as its standard sidearm for nearly 75 years. Yet it is also one of the most popular civilian handguns today… While John M. Browning designed the 1911 pistol specifically for the military, it ‘was based on the Models 1900, 1903, and 1905s, which were all commercial guns’ and the 1911 was simultaneously ‘prevalent in both the military and civilian market’ after its military adoption.”
“The Fourth Circuit’s upside-down analysis would first examine the Model 1911’s military utility and declare it eligible for a ban before acknowledging that the weapon is in widespread common, lawful use by the civilian population. Yet such focus on military use would either ignore the scores of other handguns that may be more powerful or accurate than the 1911 or—worse, and as the holding below essentially does for rifles—lead the Court to declare that almost all semiautomatic pistols that even look like or share features of the 1911 are subject to ban. This broad ban would fly in the face of Heller, which recognized “that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon [and] …. the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home.” Such guns are thus in common use and critical to the exercise of their core Second Amendment right to self-defense.”
More At:
gunsmagazine.com
BY DAVE WORKMAN
Late last month, something remarkable—perhaps even historic—happened, but it was really only reported in any detail by the firearms media.
Twenty-five state attorneys general—that’s half of all top state legal officials in the country—signed what is called an Amicus Curiae (“Friend of the Court”) brief urging the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to accept a Writ of Certiorari in the case of Bianchi, et. al. v. Frosh, et.al., a challenge to Maryland’s ban on so-called “assault weapons.”
SCOTUS may not announce right away whether it will take the Maryland case. It still has to produce a decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the case on carry outside the home.
Plaintiffs in the case against Maryland are the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its sister organization, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, plus the California-based Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., Field Traders LLC, David Snope, Micah Schaefer and Dominic Bianchi, the latter for whom the lawsuit is named. Defendant Brian E. Frosh is the Maryland Attorney General. Other defendants are Col. Woodrow W. Jones, III, secretary of the State Police; R. Jay Fisher, sheriff of Baltimore County, and Anne Arundel County Sheriff Jim Fredericks, all in their official capacities.
“Although Heller held that the right to keep and bear arms extends to firearms that are ‘in common use’ for ‘lawful purposes,’ the Fourth Circuit held that ‘weapons most useful in military service’ are ‘outside the ambit of the Second Amendment’ without regard to whether these same weapons are also in common use for lawful purposes,” the brief says.
“Leaving Maryland’s ban in place,” the brief warns, “emboldens other States to enact similar bans, reducing the number of modern sporting rifles and similar firearms owned by the public—and thereby tilting the scales of Heller analysis. Developments will come less in the form of reasoned and independent judicial analysis, and more in the form of hasty enactments informed by a desire to strike while the iron is hot.”
“On its face, the Fourth Circuit’s novel standard leads to absurd and confusing results. For instance, the Model 1911 .45 caliber pistol may be considered a weapon ‘most useful in military service’ given the military used it as its standard sidearm for nearly 75 years. Yet it is also one of the most popular civilian handguns today… While John M. Browning designed the 1911 pistol specifically for the military, it ‘was based on the Models 1900, 1903, and 1905s, which were all commercial guns’ and the 1911 was simultaneously ‘prevalent in both the military and civilian market’ after its military adoption.”
“The Fourth Circuit’s upside-down analysis would first examine the Model 1911’s military utility and declare it eligible for a ban before acknowledging that the weapon is in widespread common, lawful use by the civilian population. Yet such focus on military use would either ignore the scores of other handguns that may be more powerful or accurate than the 1911 or—worse, and as the holding below essentially does for rifles—lead the Court to declare that almost all semiautomatic pistols that even look like or share features of the 1911 are subject to ban. This broad ban would fly in the face of Heller, which recognized “that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon [and] …. the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home.” Such guns are thus in common use and critical to the exercise of their core Second Amendment right to self-defense.”
More At:
Half of the Attorneys General in the U.S. Want SCOTUS to hear 2A Case
Twenty-five state attorneys general—that’s half of all top state legal officials in the country, are urging the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS)
