ThinkingAfield.org

The Second Amendment Foundation and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review of their challenge to Maryland’s ban on modern semiautomatic rifles.

Joining SAF and CCRKBA are Field Traders, LLC, the Firearms Policy Coalition and three private citizens, Micah Schaefer, David Snope and Dominic Banchi, for whom the case is named. The case is Bianchi v. Frosh. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and John D. Ohlendorf with Cooper & Kirk, PLLC in Washington, D.C., Raymond M. DiGuiseppe at the DiGuiseppe Law Firm, P.C. in Southport, N.C., and Adam Kraut, FPC in Sacramento, Calif. The brief may be read here.

As detailed in the 39-page brief, various circuits have upheld such bans by using what amounts to “a grab-bag of ad-hoc constitutional tests, varying from circuit to circuit,” with Maryland’s ban representing “perhaps the most extreme test contrived thus far.”

The brief goes on to explain, “Maryland’s ban…singles out for special disfavor not a recognized type of firearm, but certain features included on some firearms. That makes Maryland’s law particularly irrational, since most of the features it bans actually serve to make the firearms on which they are included safer.” A few lines later, the brief observes, “In truth, the odd assortment of firearms Maryland calls ‘assault weapons’ are mechanically identical to any other semiautomatic firearm—arms that, as no one disputes, are exceedingly common and fully protected by the Second Amendment.” Read more

The petition for certiorari spotlights continued disregard by lower courts for Second Amendment protections recognized by nation’s highest court

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) is asking the United States Supreme Court to strike down Maryland’s unconstitutional ban on so-called “assault weapons” in a petition filed today. FPC’s petition seeks to have the Court overrule a misguided Fourth Circuit decision that held common semi-automatic firearms like the AR-15 rifle were “like M-16s” and unprotected by the Second Amendment. The petition for certiorari in Bianchi v. Frosh can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“The firearms banned by Maryland are clearly protected under any honest reading of the Second Amendment and the Court’s Heller and McDonald decisions,” said Adam Kraut, FPC’s senior director of legal operations. “For over a decade, lower courts have ignored the text of the Constitution, binding Supreme Court precedent, and the relevant history and tradition to improperly uphold bans on constitutionally protected common arms. However, this case presents the Court with an ideal vehicle to both address the scope of protected arms and constitutionally infirm analysis applied by these recalcitrant lower courts. Just as Federal District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez held in our Miller v. Bonta case, the Supreme Court should grant this petition for certiorari and make clear that these common arms are protected and cannot be banned by any government.” Read more

The National Shooting Sports Foundation® (NSSF®) and a group of fourteen firearm manufacturers, distributors, and retailers filed a lawsuit and moved for a preliminary injunction in federal court today challenging as unconstitutional a New York law designed to blame the industry for the criminal misuse or unlawful possession of firearms in New York no matter where they were purchased.

Specifically, New York’s “public nuisance” law would subject members of the firearm industry to civil lawsuits for the criminal misuse or unlawful possession of firearms in New York. The law would impose liability on industry members for firearms lawfully sold anywhere in the United States that end up being criminally misused or illegally possessed in New York thereby allegedly contributing to a “public nuisance” in the state.

Today’s lawsuit challenges the New York law as preempted by the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). It also challenges the law as unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. The lawsuit further challenges the law as an impermissible attempt by New York State to regulate interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

New York is trying to use the threat of crushing liability to coerce out-of-state businesses to adopt sales practices and procedures not required by Congress or the law of the state where they operate. The Constitution reserves the power to regulate interstate commerce solely to Congress. This law interferes with the sovereignty of other states to make policy choices about how firearms should be sold in their state, subject only to the Second Amendment and federal law. Read more