RICHMOND, Va. – Federal appeals court judges in Virginia have strongly opposed attempts to reverse gun regulations in Maryland and beyond. These judges expressed disbelief at the notion that any commonly used firearm can be banned, regardless of its level of danger.
During a recent hearing, Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, an Army veteran from the 1960s and appointed by President Ronald Reagan, shared his own experience of firing an M16 rifle. He vividly described the devastating impact of the weapon, stating that when the bullets hit a human target, it splintered them into multiple pieces. He noted that the M16 has since become even more lethal.
The M16, which can fire automatically or semi-automatically, served as the standard-issue rifle for the U.S. military for many years. The civilian version, the AR-15, is beloved by gun enthusiasts across the country and has infamously been used in numerous mass shootings.
The judges on the panel questioned the limits of gun regulation. They inquired whether there was any stopping point if the state couldn’t ban even the most dangerous firearms. These cases come two years after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that gun regulations must align with “history and tradition” and that only “dangerous and unusual” weapons can be restricted.
Shira Lauren Feldman, a member of the gun-control group Brady United, expressed her belief that the Supreme Court will inevitably address these legal disputes once more appellate courts have weighed in. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, where the recent hearing took place, is known for its liberal leanings. However, Wilkinson’s skeptical questions showcased the perspectives of conservative judges who question the validity of these challenges.
Gun rights groups’ representative, Peter A. Patterson, argued that if a firearm is in common use, it cannot be considered unusually dangerous and therefore cannot be banned. The judges, including Chief Judge Albert Diaz, appointed by President Barack Obama, raised concerns about the potential limitations of such an interpretation. They questioned whether there should be any boundaries to the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms.
These cases before the appeals court involve Maryland’s assault weapons ban and challenges to other firearms laws across the country. Gun rights advocates seek to argue that these regulations infringe upon their constitutional rights. The judges grappled with issues like obliterated serial numbers on guns and Maryland’s restrictive handgun permitting process.
Some judges expressed their support for the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, emphasizing the need to adhere to precedent. However, others raised concerns about the lack of clarity in defining what qualifies as “common” or “dangerous” in terms of firearms.
The arguments made during this hearing reflect the ongoing nationwide debates about gun control and the interpretation of the Second Amendment. The Fourth Circuit’s eventual ruling could have significant implications for gun regulations in Maryland and potentially set a precedent for similar cases across the country.