Gun-rights activists challenge Maryland gun control law in two ways
Petitions for the Week
Meanwhile, in the fall of 2020, another group of Maryland residents, gun-rights groups, and a firearms dealer went to federal court to challenge the 2013 law’s assault-rifle ban. These challengers argued they had a constitutional right of ownership of assault rifles such as AR-15s and that a ban on all assault rifles was incompatible with the Second Amendment. Both courts cited a ruling by the 4th Circuit, which upheld certain portions of Maryland’s ban on assault weapons. The reasoning was that there is no right to possess military style weapons. The Supreme Court halted both challenges when it announced that it would hear arguments about New York’s concealed carry law.
After striking down the New York law the justices sent the challenge to Maryland’s assault-weapons-ban back to the 4th Circuit to reconsider in light of a new Bruen Test that gun regulations must be in line with the historical understandings of the Second Amendment. This broad test has caused confusion in lower courts. In June, the justices clarified the Bruen test by upholding a federal ban on gun ownership for those who are subject to domestic violence restraining order. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, on behalf of an eight-justice majority, that Bruen doesn’t call for a “law trapped in amber,” rather it requires courts to examine whether the law in question is “‘relevantly similar'” to laws that are understood to be permissible by our tradition. The court of appeals ruled that the Second Amendment did not cover assault rifles, even after Bruen. The court of appeals argued that even if the Second Amendment covered assault rifles, Maryland’s law is still constitutional, as it is consistent with a history of states regulating dangerous weapons. The court of appeals argued that the same logic applied to Maryland’s requirements to obtain a license for the purchase of guns. The challengers in Snope claim that Maryland’s assault weapons ban is unconstitutional, as the Second Amendment protects the right to own all “arms,” which includes assault rifles. They also claim that Maryland’s ban on assault weapons, such as the AR-15 — the most common assault rifle in the United States – is too restrictive and does not represent a military style weapon. They also claim that Justice Thomas’s footnote from Bruen only applied to laws requiring a license for gun ownership. But in any event, the challengers argue that the state’s requirements are “abusive” because they collectively impose an excessive delay: up to a month for a background check to obtain a license, up to a week for a second background check to purchase a gun, and additional time to complete a firearm-safety course.
Maryland urges the justices to reject both challenges. The state argues the 4th Circuit made the right decision in upholding the assault weapons ban and the licensing requirements under Bruen. Maryland says that it is premature to intervene now. Lower courts are just starting to grapple with the question of regulating assault weapons in light of Bruen, the state explains, and since that decision no other appeals court has weighed in on this kind of licensing requirement.
A list of this week’s featured petitions is below:
Snope v. Brown
24-203
Issue:
Whether the Constitution permits the state of Maryland to ban semiautomatic rifles that are in common use for lawful purposes, including the most popular rifle in America.
A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279
24-249
Issue
: Whether the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Rehabilitation Act of 1973 require children with disabilities to satisfy a uniquely stringent “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard when seeking relief for discrimination relating to their education.
Mahmoud v. Taylor
24-297
Issue
: Whether public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out.
Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Jeffries
24-300
Issue
: Whether the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires an agency to produce its “whole record” for judicial review, permits an agency to categorically and unilaterally exclude from the administrative record materials that the agency deems deliberative.
Protect Our Parks, Inc. v. Buttigieg
24-311
Issues: (1) Whether the Obama Presidential Center project, which includes four structures constructed over 19.3 acres of Frederick Law Olmsted’s Jackson Park, located next to Lake Michigan, is a major federal action under the federal environmental laws because the roadwork required due to the destruction and alteration of its internal roadwork, necessitated by that construction, is federally funded; (2) whether a federal court can properly defer to a federal agency’s narrow, unsupported and highly deferential definition of a major project and thus escape review under this court’s recent decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo and its well-established decision in Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe; (3) whether the federal reviews of the center relied upon below employed illegal segmentation to allow large portions of the undertaking to escape federal review under the federal environmental laws; (4) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit erred in deferring to the federal agencies that either ignored or belittled the destruction of hundreds of trees, migratory bird habitats, and other key environmental effects in declining to require an environmental impact statement; (5) whether the 7th Circuit erred in affirming the trial court’s denial of the plaintiffs’ only motion for leave to amend pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, which was filed before any discovery began, before any schedule was set, and before any trial date was set; and (6) whether the 7th Circuit’s refusal to reverse the dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6) of state law claims violated both Illinois law and this court’s precedents dealing with the duty of loyalty, duty of care, and nondelegation and public-trust doctrines.
Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany v. Harris
24-319
Issues: (1) Whether a law is “neutral” and “generally applicable” under Employment Division v. Smith where it exempts certain religious organizations — but not others — based on narrow and subjective religious criteria unrelated to the law’s purpose, or instead such laws are subject to strict scrutiny; and (2) whether, if the First Amendment permits such discrimination among religious organizations under the rule announced in Smith, that decision should be overruled.
Franklin v. New York
24-330
Issues: (1) Whether the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation clause applies to out-of-court statements admitted as evidence against criminal defendants if, and only if, the statements were created for the primary purpose of serving as trial testimony; and (2) whether a post-arrest report prepared about a criminal defendant by an agent of the state for use in a criminal proceeding can be admitted as evidence against the defendant at trial, without providing a right to cross-examine the report’s author.
IBM Corp. & Combined Affiliates v. New York Tax Appeals Tribunal
24-332
Issue: Whether a state may impose a “heads I win, tails you lose” regime that taxes either side of an interstate or foreign transaction, depending on which side has a nexus to the state, even though such a regime would inherently disadvantage interstate and foreign commerce if it were replicated by every jurisdiction.
The Walt Disney Co. v. New York Tax Appeals Tribunal
24-333
Issue: Whether a state tax law that on its face treats royalty income derived from corporate affiliates less favorably if the affiliates do not subject themselves to the state’s jurisdiction facially discriminates against interstate and foreign commerce.
FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd.
24-345
Issue: Whether Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act creates an implied private right of action.
Port of Tacoma v. Puget Soundkeeper Alliance
24-350
Issue: Whether Section 505 of the Clean Water Act authorizes citizens to invoke the federal courts to enforce conditions of state-issued pollutant-discharge permits adopted under state law that mandate a greater scope of coverage than required by the act.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Ramsey
24-365
Issue: Whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts California’s rule established in McGill v. Citibank.
Maryland Shall Issue, Inc. v. Moore
24-373
Issue: Whether Maryland’s handgun qualification license requirement violates the Second Amendment.
