PHILADELPHIA (AP) — Gun rights groups are urging a federal appeals court to overturn a judge’s refusal to halt enforcement of Delaware laws banning certain semiautomatic firearms and restricting the size of firearm magazines. The appeals court heard arguments on Monday regarding the laws that were enacted in 2022, which ban the sale of several types of semiautomatic firearms and shotguns, and limit magazine capacity to 17 rounds. Opponents argue that these laws violate Delawareans’ constitutional right to bear arms.
Lawyers representing gun rights groups made their case on Monday, seeking to overturn a judge’s decision not to block the enforcement of Delaware’s laws. These laws, which were enacted in 2022 by the Democrat-controlled General Assembly, prohibit the sale of specific semiautomatic firearms and shotguns, and also impose a limit of 17 rounds for firearm magazines.
Last year, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Andrews ruled that the firearms and large-capacity magazines targeted by these laws are presumptively protected by the Second Amendment. However, he declined to issue an injunction, stating that the state had sufficiently demonstrated that these weapons and magazines have raised concerns for public safety due to significant technological advances.
Opponents of the laws argued that these gun restrictions align with the historical tradition of firearm regulation in the United States. They also failed to prove that they would be unable to defend themselves adequately with alternate firearms.
Delaware is one of nine states, along with the District of Columbia, that have banned certain semiautomatic firearms labeled as “assault weapons” by gun-control advocates. Additionally, it is among the 14 states that restrict ammunition magazine sizes for semiautomatic weapons. This legal battle has attracted “friend-of-the-court” briefs from multiple states on both sides of the issue.
John Ohlendorf, an attorney representing the Firearms Policy Coalition and other appellants, asserted in court that the enforcement of Delaware’s law violates his clients’ Second Amendment rights. Conversely, David Ross, an attorney hired by Delaware officials, argued that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable harm caused by the laws.
Supporters of the laws dismissed arguments that they should be deemed unconstitutional, emphasizing that they target firearms and high-capacity magazines that are not commonly used for self-defense. They maintained that the key question is whether the relevant firearms are typically employed for self-defense, to which they responded with a resounding “no.”
The issue of self-defense took center stage during the proceedings, with Judge Jane Roth questioning whether these firearms are commonly used for that purpose. Erin Murphy, an attorney representing the Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association and National Shooting Sports Foundation, corrected the judge, highlighting that U.S. Supreme Court precedents reject the notion of banning semiautomatic handguns for self-defense while allowing the possession of other firearms. Murphy asserted that any “bearable arm” that can be carried and used for self-defense is protected by the Second Amendment, regardless of features like semiautomatic functionality and detachable magazines.
This legal battle comes as the compliance of gun control measures faces heightened scrutiny following a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision. The ruling established new standards for evaluating limitations on gun ownership, emphasizing the need for proposed restrictions to align with the nation’s “historical tradition of firearm regulation.” As a result, courts have invalidated laws meant to prevent domestic abusers, felony defendants, and marijuana users from owning guns. Earlier this year, the Third Circuit court ruled that nonviolent offenders should not be subjected to lifetime gun bans, citing the case of a man barred from buying a firearm due to a 1995 conviction for misstating his income to receive food stamps.
The federal appeals court will now deliberate on whether to overturn the judge’s decision and halt the enforcement of Delaware’s firearm laws. The outcome of this pivotal case could have significant implications for gun control measures and the interpretation of Second Amendment rights.