South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley is renewing a Republican effort to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a Maryland case centering on a decade-old ban on certain firearms.
An all-Republican coalition, led by Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador and supported by Jackley, 25 other attorneys general and the leaders of the Arizona and Wisconsin legislatures, petitioned the Supreme Court in an amicus brief filed Monday to review Snope v. Brown. , a Maryland-based challenge to the Firearm Safety Act of 2013.
The 2013 Maryland statute prohibits the possession, sale, transfer, purchase and receipt of a variety of “assault weapons.” This includes certain AR-15s, one of the most popular rifles enjoyed by American gun owners and a weapon used in a number of mass shootings in the US; other firearms, such as the Barrett .50 caliber rifle and the AK-47, are also subject to the ban. The law also placed a 10-round limit on gun magazines.
The law was upheld by a majority of federal judges on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on August 6. Gun rights groups filed a petition for review by the Supreme Court on August 21.
“This ruling violates our Second Amendment rights,” Jackley said in a news release Thursday. “Law-abiding citizens have a guaranteed individual right to firearms, including for sport and self-defense, under the U.S. Constitution.”
Maryland plaintiffs, including gun rights groups, previously asked the Supreme Court to hear the challenge ahead of the lower court’s ruling in May, but the judicial tribunal declined at the time, according to The Associated Press.
The attorneys general who filed cited their respective state’s inability to sell the said guns in Maryland; the ban against out-of-state citizens using the guns in Maryland; and Second Amendment protection as the reasons for their interest in the case.
“The Court must reject this latest attempt to give ‘second-class status’ to a crucial constitutional right,” the attorneys general wrote in the court filing. “Without correction, the Fourth Circuit’s decision will cloud the clear Second Amendment standards this Court has adopted. And his decision will embolden other governments to erode Americans’ essential right to keep and bear arms.”
The majority opinion from the Virginia-based appeals court concluded that “military-style” firearms – such as the AR-15 – do not enjoy Second Amendment protection because “they are designed for sustained combat operations that are inappropriate and disproportionate.” to the need. for self-defense.” The justices also pointed to the country’s historic efforts in regulating certain “exceptionally dangerous weapons,” such as Bowie knives and metal knuckles.
The coalition argued in its letter that “military-style” firearms are still considered “weapons” and thus protected under the Second Amendment. The attorneys general also argued that the appeals court’s decision lacked context in determining whether certain weapons are “exceptionally dangerous” as well as “unusual.”
“There is no American historical tradition that allows governments to ban all firearms they deem ‘dangerous,’” the attorney general wrote.
Several gun rights groups, including the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Law Center, filed similar petitions on Monday.
The states listed in the amicus brief include: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota , Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming, as well as the Arizona and Wisconsin legislatures.
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes and her Wisconsin counterpart Josh Kaul, both Democrats, are not listed as supporters in the brief.
This article originally appeared on Sioux Falls Argus Leader: Jackley joins all-Republican effort to seek Supreme Court review of Maryland’s gun ban
