No matter how many times we show that assault weapons bans are useless, gun control nuts keep trying to push them through. Now the matter is sitting before the Supreme Court of the United States, which should settle the matter once and for all.
In particular, the idea of banning an entire class of weapons is being challenged as unconstitutional.
The Second Amendment Foundation has joined other groups in filing an amicus brief with SCOTUS in opposition to a Maryland assault weapon ban.
“Our interest in this case [Kolbe v. Hogan] is guided by the belief that government cannot prohibit whole classes of firearms, including semiautomatic sport-utility rifles, that are in common use by private citizens and civilian law enforcement,” explained SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb in a press release.
“But in Maryland, they want to do exactly that,” he continued. “It’s almost as if they either don’t understand Heller, but are deliberately ignoring what was explained clearly by the late Justice Antonin Scalia.”
Back in February, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ban, which was expanded in 2013 under the “Firearms Safety Act of 2013,” arguing that the Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller decision left the door open to permit governments to regulate firearms that are similar to those issued to military personnel.
Here is the excerpt from Heller that the 4th Circuit underscored as grounds for bans on black rifles (emphasis added):
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
In the brief, SAF, the Cato Institute, the Independence Institute and the National Sheriffs’ Association argue that the 4th Circuit’s decision is a misreading of Heller.
That seems to be a fair assessment of the 4th Circuit’s case.
Further, there’s the idiocy that lead to this in the first place. So-called assault weapons—as the term is applied in the media and in political circles, at least—are fundamentally no different than hunting weapons that most gun grabbers claim they want to leave alone. Add in a couple of superficial features and WHAM! Instant MurderDeathKill machine.
Let’s not even touch the fact that there are practically no murders with any rifle during the course of an average year anyway, and you can see why any effort to ban assault rifles are nothing more than appeasing an idiotic base that knows jack about guns.
I can only pray that this decision follows the path laid out by Heller and McDonald. If so, maybe it will convince politicians that it’s beyond stupid to keep going after assault weapons.
Then again, these are politicians we’re talking about. I’d best not hold my breath.