CCRKBA: SCOTUS to Confer On Maryland Assault Weapon Ban Case

I find it almost amusing how often people say they don’t favor gun bans while also supporting bans on so-called assault weapons. They don’t seem to grok that for most of us, the term “gun ban” doesn’t have to be a ban on all firearms. Just banning a category is a gun ban.

That’s what Maryland did recently.

Unsurprisingly, that resulted in a challenge. After all, you can’t just ban something that’s part of a constitutionally protected right and not expect some kind of pushback.

One of the groups behind the challenge is the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and they’re pretty stoked right now because of what’s happening with that challenge.

From a press release:

The Supreme Court of the United States has distributed the case of Snope v. Brown, which was brought by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms against Maryland’s ban on so-called “assault weapons,” for a Friday, Jan. 10 conference.

CCRKBA is joined by the Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition in this long-running case, which was already granted certiorari in June 2022, when the high court vacated an appeals court ruling and remanded it back to the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court for further action based on guidelines established that month by the Court in its landmark New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision. Now that the Fourth Circuit has stubbornly clung to its original, and fundamentally erroneous decision supporting the Maryland ban, CCRKBA and its allies have once again petitioned the Supreme Court for review.

“We’re definitely hopeful the high court agrees to take this case again and schedules oral arguments soon,” said CCRKBA Managing Director Andrew Gottlieb. “An affirmative ruling by the Court which settles the question whether modern semiautomatic rifles are protected by the Second Amendment will have a far-reaching impact across the country. A decision that removes any doubt about the right of the people to keep and bear modern rifles is long overdue.

“Frankly,” Gottlieb added, “considering the emphasis anti-gunners place on the reference to the militia within the Second Amendment, it would clearly protect such firearms. The gun ban lobby obviously didn’t think their argument through very far. ”

An affirmative Second Amendment ruling would immediately have a direct impact on similar gun bans in California, Washington, Connecticut, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Delaware and any other state where modern sport-utility rifles are prohibited. 

“The national implications of a Supreme Court ruling on Maryland’s ban cannot be over-stated,” Gottlieb observed. “Modern semiautomatic rifles such as the AR-15 are the most popular rifles in America today. They are used for hunting, predator control, competition, recreational shooting, home and personal protection. With millions of these firearms in common use, it would be inconcievable to think they are not protected by the Second Amendment, which does not specify the types of arms it protects, but only says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It’s time for the court to put teeth in that phrase, and back it up with the full force of law.”

This isn’t a sign that the end is nigh for assault weapon bans, but it’s a sign that it might be.

And, frankly, it should.

When the Bruen decision was handed down, it said that if you want a gun control law to be constitutional, there needs to be a parallel to a law at the time of the nation’s founding. Now, maybe I missed it, but where is the parallel to an assault weapon ban? No, it doesn’t have to be a direct, one-to-one parallel, but there needs to be some kind of parallel. Weapon bans weren’t exactly popular with our Founding Fathers.

There are a lot of other reasons why I think an assault weapon ban will be struck down, too, including the whole “in common use” thing. No, I don’t agree with it, but it’s what the Court has used for years now, and the popularity of the AR-15 means it’s pretty common and guns don’t need to be fired in self-defense to be considered “in use.”

So I, too, hope that the Court decides to hear this case and put an end to this nonsense forever. I’m sick of seeing people crow about how they don’t want to ban guns only to immediately seek to ban guns.

I don’t think it’ll stop their efforts to restrict our rights by any measure, but it’ll force them to find a new way within whatever framework they can is left to them, which can then be knocked down.