Appeals court upholds Maryland ban on certain semiautomatic weapons 

A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld Maryland’s ban on certain semiautomatic weapons, handing a win to gun control advocates in a closely watched Second Amendment case.

In a 10-5 vote, the full 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that Maryland’s law complies with the Supreme Court’s recent expansion of gun rights.

“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 are beyond the reach of our nation’s democratic processes,” Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III wrote for the majority.

One plaintiff has already vowed to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.

Maryland enacted the law in 2013 after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, in which 20 children and six adults were killed.

The statute bans possessing or selling assault weapons, defined to cover dozens of weapons like the AR-15, AK-47 and semiautomatic rifles equipped with high-capacity magazines. Violations are a criminal offense that can carry up to three years in prison.

Three Maryland residents, three gun rights organizations and a firearms dealer based in the state have challenged the law for years, claiming it violates their constitutional protections.

The 4th Circuit had upheld the law, but the Supreme Court sent the case back for another look after the 6-3 conservative majority issued an expansion of Second Amendment rights two years ago.

In NYSRPA v. Bruen, the court ruled that gun control measures must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation to be upheld as constitutional.

Wilkinson, an appointee of former President Reagan, said Maryland’s law is still constitutional even under that more stringent standard. 

“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,” Wilkinson wrote for the majority. 

“Moreover, the Maryland law fits comfortably within our nation’s tradition of firearms regulation,” the opinion continued. “It is but another example of a state regulating excessively dangerous weapons once their incompatibility with a lawful and safe society becomes apparent, while nonetheless preserving avenues for armed self-defense.”

Wilkinson’s opinion was joined by eight other judges, all appointed by Democrats. One other judge agreed the law was constitutional but declined to join the majority opinion’s reasoning. 

Five judges, all appointed by Republican presidents, dissented. Judge Julius Richardson, an appointee of former President Trump, wrote in the nearly 100-page dissent that the majority “disregards the Founders’ wisdom and replaces it with its own.” 

“While history and tradition support the banning of weapons that are both dangerous and unusual, Maryland’s ban cannot pass constitutional muster as it prohibits the possession of arms commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” Richardson wrote in the nearly 100-page dissent. 

“In holding otherwise, the majority grants states historically unprecedented leeway to trammel the constitutional liberties of their citizens.” 

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), one of the gun rights groups that has challenged Maryland’s law, vowed to bring the case to the Supreme Court.

“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,” FPC President Brandon Combs said in a statement.

The court refused to get involved in the case at an earlier posture, and the justices similarly declined to take up the issue when it turned away a challenge to a similar law in Illinois last month.