U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- The United States Supreme Court declined to review a Maryland law that banned a large number of semi-automatic rifles including the AR15 which is the most popular semi-automatic rifle in the US as “weapons of war,” and a case involving the open carrying of a firearm in a holster out of Flordia.
Back in February U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond upheld Maryland’s 2012 “assault weapons ban” by a vote of 10-4 in the case Kolbe v. Hogan. They ruled that so-called “assault weapons” are not protected under the second amendment of the US Consitution. This ruling went further than any other court has gone to this point in regards to The Second Amendment.
In the decision of the majority ruling, written by Judge Robert B. King, it went as far as calling semi-automatic, like the AR15, “weapons of war.” Judge William B. Traxler Jr. who wrote the strongly worded decent said the court has, “gone to greater lengths than any other court to eviscerate the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.”
Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh (D) stated that it was, “unthinkable that people could say that those weapons of war are protected by the Second Amendment.” The type of rifles that are banned, AR-15 for example, are not used by any military in the world.
The US Supreme Court had not stepped into the gun debate since 2010 when it ruled that people had the right to keep a firearm in the home for self-defense. It has rejected every other review of every gun law even though 21 state attorneys generals asked the Supreme Court to review this case.
Maryland enacted their draconian law in response to the school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary school in New Town, CT. Rahm Emanuel famously said, “Never allow a good crisis to go to waste.” Maryland didn’t let the murder of children by a crazed gunman go to waste by politizing the shooting to get this law past.
The Supreme Court did not comment on why the court decided not to review the decision of the 4th Circuit Court in this case. Many gun rights activists were hoping the decision of the 4th Circuit would be reviewed by the Supreme Court since the law and the 4th Circuit Court’s decision stood on shaky legal ground.
In a second case out of Flordia, Norman v. Florida, the United States Supreme Court also refused to hear the appeal. This court case was about the constitutional right to open carry a firearm in a holster.
A Florida man, Dale Lee Norman, was arrested in Florida in 2012 for open carrying a firearm while walking down the street. Florida allows for the carrying guns outside of the home, but Florida requires the weapons to be concealed by the wearer with a valid concealed handgun permit. Norman, who at the time of his arrest had a clean record, was challenging the constitutionality of this law.
According to Crane v. Department of State, Florida views the right to carry a firearm outside the home as a privilege and not as a right. If Norman had been successful in his appeal, this would have had a ripple effect that would have forced other states such as South Carolina and Illinois to change their laws on the open carrying of firearms since their requirements are almost identical to Florida’s law.
The United States Supreme Court also did not offer any comment to why they turned down the review of this case. It is unclear why they have refused to review decisions in court cases involving firearms.
About John Crump
John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. He is the former CEO of Veritas Firearms, LLC and is the co-host of The Patriot News Podcast which can be found at www.blogtalkradio.com/patriotnews. John has written extensively on the patriot movement including 3%’ers, Oath Keepers, and Militias. In addition to the Patriot movement, John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and is currently working on a book on the history of the patriot movement and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss or at www.crumpy.com.
As most have seen through out history ‘words are cheap’ and ‘oaths are cheaper’….debating the Bill of Rights with the ‘commie politicians’ of today and yesterday, is a fruitless and waste of time. It only gives them the ‘legitimacy that they seek and hardens their position…The courts are ‘fixed’ to the ‘commies view point’….the remedy is not easy and will never be…..any person that believes they are correct in their stand on our Bill of Rights and our Constitution..IS the enemy of the State…and someday soon will be tasked to defend that stance with the physical means available to them…since… Read more »
April 19 1775
Damn. Here in Virginia we are under the jurisdiction of the 4th Circuit and this idiotic ruling. For the second time in a row, a liberal anti-gun executive slate has been elected. This one worse than the last. It looks like we just squeaked by with the legislature, which will prevent any anti-gun bills going through. It also means there is no way anything more pro-gun gets through. Should AG Mark Herring, after Terrible Terry threw him under the bus on the reciprocity issue, try to take a reinterpretation page from Maura Healy, we could see that damn 4th ruling… Read more »
Wild Bill What most 21st Century Americans simply do not grasp is that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were not written to to give rights to the citizens of our then-new nation, but was instead written to tightly constrain the federal government. The Founders had just won a long and brutal war against a far-away foreign government, and the Federalists and Anti-Federalists were locked in a power struggle on just how much power the federal government in a swamp on the Potomac River would be allowed to have. The Federalists were concerned that the federal government would be anemic… Read more »
@GMB, our God given, Constitution enumerated Civil Rights, also, limit the State governments by operation of the 14th Amendment. Otherwise what good would a God given Civil Right be if the several states did not have observe them?
Seeing as how the Bill Of Rights is to limit the federal government,not the several states or We The People,what is so difficult to understand in the sentence “Shall Not Be Infringed”.