Posted August 21, 2017 8:11 am by Comments

By David S. Kopel, Randy E. Barnett, Joseph G.S. Greenlee, Ilya Shapiro, Trevor Burrus David S. Kopel, Randy E. Barnett, Joseph G.S. Greenlee, Ilya Shapiro, Trevor Burrus

A Maryland statute prohibits ownership of “assault weapons,” the
statutory definition of which includes the most popular
semi-automatic rifles — one bullet per trigger-pull without
reloading — in the country, as well as magazines capable of
holding more than 10 cartridges (bullets). Stephen Kolbe, a small
business owner, among others, sued to overturn the law. The U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld Maryland’s ban. The
Fourth Circuit extrapolated from a shred of the landmark 2008
District of Columbia v. Heller case, suggesting
that weapons “most useful in military service — M-16 rifles
and the like” could be banned. From that squib, the court decided
that the test for whether or not a class of weapons could be banned
was whether it was “like an M-16.” That not only contravened the
core of Heller — that all weapons in common lawful
civilian use are constitutionally protected — but raised a
host of other issues. Accordingly, Kolbe is now asking the Supreme
Court to review his case. Cato, joined by the Second Amendment
Foundation, Independence Institute, and National Sheriffs’
Association — a law enforcement organization! — has
filed a brief, co-authored by Georgetown law professor Randy
Barnett, supporting that petition. We point out that the Maryland
law classifies …Read the Rest

Source:: Cato Institute

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *