BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation and its partners have filed a supplemental brief in their challenge of Maryland’s ban on so-called “assault weapons,” telling the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals the state’s position was effectively nullified by the June Supreme Court ruling in the Bruen case.
“This is one of four cases the high court remanded to the appeals courts for further action consistent with language in the Bruen ruling,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The state’s position is to take the case farther back, which we see as a tactic to delay the inevitable, which is that Maryland’s ban on modern semiautomatic rifles violates the constitution’s Second Amendment.”
Joining SAF are the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Field Traders, LLC., the Firearms Policy Coalition, and three private citizens, David Snope, Micah Schaefer and Dominic Bianchi, for whom the case is named. The case is Bianchi v. Frosh.
Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Raymond M. DiGuiseppe at the DiGuiseppe Law Group, P.C., Southport, N.C., and David H. Thompson and Peter A. Patterson at Cooper & Kirk, PLLC in Washington, D.C.
In their 34-page brief, SAF and its partners contend the appeals court “need only assess whether the rifles banned by Maryland are in common use for lawful purposes” and are therefore protected by the Constitution.
“As we point out clearly in the supplemental brief,” Gottlieb explained, “there is really no reason for the state to argue more data is necessary, whether the information is related to cosmetic features of certain firearms, or whether people use these firearms for self-defense. All that matters is that tens of millions of American citizens have adopted modern semiautomatic rifles for self-defense and other lawful purposes, and it’s not up to the State of Maryland to decide whether an individual is making what some bureaucrat would consider a wise decision.
“There should be no foot-dragging,” he said, “nor should the court allow the state to hinder progress toward resolution of this case.”