In an almost incomprehensible decision in early August, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia ruled 10 to 5 to uphold Maryland’s “assault weapons” ban in a case called Bianchi v. Wilkinson. The Fourth Circuit ruled that the ban did not violate the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms or that restrictions on firearms ownership be rooted in text and history, as required by the 2022 case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
In the 65-page opinion written by Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, the majority said, “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.”
“We decline to wield the Constitution to declare that military-style armaments, which have become primary instruments of mass killing and terrorist attacks in the United States,” Judge Wilkinson added, “are beyond the reach of our nation’s democratic processes.”
The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), which had challenged the ban in court, will seek Supreme Court review.
“Today’s decision from the 4th Circuit is unsurprising given their prior decision in Kolbe,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “We believe, much like in Kolbe, the court’s analysis is flawed and that the challenged law is unconstitutional. We will be filing a petition for certiorari at the Supreme Court, as this case presents an excellent vehicle for the Court to settle this debate once and for all.”
“The court relied heavily on the distinction between ‘military style’ arms and those appropriate for self-defense use,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This distinction runs completely contrary to the mandates of Heller and Bruen.”
What strikes me as wrong is the court’s reasoning that AR-style rifles don’t have a role in home defense. My Daniel Defense AR, equipped with a 30-round magazine, light, offset red dot, and suppressor, would disagree. It has power, capacity, handling, mild recoil. Hard to improve on, in my opinion. It makes me want to file an amicus brief in the case attesting to the rifle’s perfect suitability for the role of home defense.
Judge Julius N. Richardson drafted a dissenting opinion, with four other judges joining, writing in the decision, “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…In holding otherwise in this case, the majority grants states historically unprecedented leeway to trammel the constitutional liberties of their citizens.” That dissent is right on point. Here’s hoping SAF is successful in its appeal, that the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, and it strikes down the Maryland ban. You can read the full decision on Gun-Tests.com.
— Todd Woodard
