Latest news with #4thCircuit
Mint
5 days ago
- Politics
- Mint
US Supreme Court declines to hear cases on assault rifle, high-capacity magazine bans
The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear a challenge to the legality of state restrictions on assault-style rifles and large-capacity ammunition magazines, passing up cases that offered the justices a chance to further expand gun rights. The justices turned away two appeals after lower courts upheld a ban in Maryland on powerful semi-automatic rifles such as AR-15s and one in Rhode Island restricting the possession of ammunition feeding devices holding more than 10 rounds. The lower courts rejected arguments that the measures violate the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms." In a nation bitterly divided over how to address firearms violence including numerous mass shootings, the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, often has taken an expansive view of the Second Amendment. The court broadened gun rights in landmark rulings in 2008, 2010 and in a 2022 case that made it harder to defend gun restrictions under the Second Amendment, requiring them to be "consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation." The challengers now before the Supreme Court contended that states and courts are flouting precedents that make clear that the Second Amendment protects weapons that are in "common use." Maryland in 2013 enacted its ban on military-style "assault weapons" such as the semiautomatic AR-15 and AK-47 after a shooter used such a firearm in the 2012 mass killing of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. The law carries a penalty of up to three years in prison. A Maryland resident who is seeking to purchase one of the banned guns, as well as three gun rights organizations including the Firearms Policy Coalition, sued in 2020, claiming the ban violates the Second Amendment. The Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2024 rejected the challenge because it said assault weapons "are military-style weapons designed for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense." As such, the "excessively dangerous" firearms are not protected by the Second Amendment, the 4th Circuit decided. The 4th Circuit said it refused "to wield the Constitution to declare that military-style armaments which have become primary instruments of mass killing and terrorist attacks in the United States are beyond the reach of our nation's democratic processes." The plaintiffs told the Supreme Court that the term "assault weapon" is a political term that is designed to exploit public confusion over machine guns and semi-automatic firearms. The banned weapons, they said, are "identical to any other semiautomatic firearm - arms that are exceedingly common and fully protected by the Second Amendment." Rhode Island's law, passed in 2022 as a response to mass shootings, bars most "large-capacity feeding" devices such as a magazine or drum that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The state calls it a "mild restriction on a particularly dangerous weapons accessory" and that in mass shooting situations, "any pause in fire, such as the pause to switch magazines, allows for precious seconds in which to escape or take defensive action." The law applied retroactively, meaning residents had to surrender or alter any banned magazine that they owned, and carries a penalty of up to five years in prison. Four gun owners and a registered firearms dealer sued, claiming the ban violated their Second Amendment rights, and that having to forfeit the magazines they owned violated the Constitution's prohibition on the government taking property without compensation. In 2024 the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the claims and refused to block the law, noting that the weapons have been deployed in mass shootings for a reason: "Semiautomatic firearms fitted with (large capacity magazines) are highly effective weapons of mass slaughter." Magazine capacity "directly corresponds to lethality," the 1st Circuit said. The Rhode Island plaintiffs told the Supreme Court that instead of abiding by the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling, the state's law 'can only be understood as protest legislation imposing more restrictive bans on long-common arms.' The Supreme Court has been buffeted in recent years by challenges to gun restrictions. It is due to rule by the end of June on the legality of a 2022 regulation issued by Democratic former President Joe Biden's administration cracking down on "ghost guns," largely untraceable firearms whose use has proliferated in crimes nationwide. The justices signaled approval of that ban during arguments in the case in October. The court in June 2024 upheld a federal law that makes it a crime for people under domestic violence restraining orders to have guns. They also struck down a federal ban on "bump stock" devices that enable semiautomatic weapons to fire rapidly like machine guns, although that case was not centered on the Second Amendment.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
US Supreme Court won't review assault weapon, high-capacity magazine bans
By Andrew Chung (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear a challenge to the legality of state restrictions on assault-style rifles and large-capacity ammunition magazines, passing up for now cases that offered the justices a chance to further expand gun rights. The justices turned away two appeals after lower courts upheld a ban in Maryland on powerful semi-automatic rifles such as AR-15s and one in Rhode Island restricting the possession of ammunition feeding devices holding more than 10 rounds. The lower courts rejected arguments that the measures violate the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms." Three conservative justices, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, dissented from the court's decision not to hear the cases. A fourth, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in a statement accompanying the Maryland case expressed sympathy for the argument made by the challengers that semiautomatic AR-15s are in common use by "law-abiding citizens and therefore are protected by the Second Amendment." Kavanaugh said the issue will return to the Supreme Court, which "presumably will address the AR–15 issue soon." In a nation bitterly divided over how to address firearms violence including numerous mass shootings, the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, often has taken an expansive view of the Second Amendment. The court broadened gun rights in landmark rulings in 2008, 2010 and in a 2022 case that made it harder to defend gun restrictions under the Second Amendment, requiring them to be "consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation." The challengers in the two cases turned away on Monday by the Supreme Court contended that states and courts are flouting precedents that make clear that the Second Amendment protects weapons that are in "common use." Maryland in 2013 enacted its ban on military-style "assault weapons" such as the AR-15 and AK-47 after a shooter used such a firearm in the 2012 mass killing of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. The law carries a penalty of up to three years in prison. A Maryland resident who is seeking to purchase one of the banned guns, as well as three gun rights organizations including the Firearms Policy Coalition, sued in 2020, claiming the ban violates the Second Amendment. The Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2024 rejected the challenge because it said assault weapons "are military-style weapons designed for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense." As such, the "excessively dangerous" firearms are not protected by the Second Amendment, the 4th Circuit decided. The 4th Circuit said it refused "to wield the Constitution to declare that military-style armaments which have become primary instruments of mass killing and terrorist attacks in the United States are beyond the reach of our nation's democratic processes." The plaintiffs told the Supreme Court that the term "assault weapon" is a political term that is designed to exploit public confusion over machine guns and semi-automatic firearms. The banned weapons, they said, are "identical to any other semiautomatic firearm - arms that are exceedingly common and fully protected by the Second Amendment." Rhode Island's law, passed in 2022 as a response to mass shootings, bars most "large-capacity feeding" devices such as a magazine or drum that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The state calls it a "mild restriction on a particularly dangerous weapons accessory" and that in mass shooting situations, "any pause in fire, such as the pause to switch magazines, allows for precious seconds in which to escape or take defensive action." The law applied retroactively, meaning residents had to surrender or alter any banned magazine that they owned, and carries a penalty of up to five years in prison. Four gun owners and a registered firearms dealer sued, claiming the ban violated their Second Amendment rights, and that having to forfeit the magazines they owned violated the Constitution's prohibition on the government taking property without compensation. In 2024 the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the claims and refused to block the law. The Rhode Island plaintiffs told the Supreme Court that instead of abiding by the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling, the state's law "can only be understood as protest legislation imposing more restrictive bans on long-common arms." The Supreme Court has been buffeted in recent years by challenges to gun restrictions. On March 26, the court upheld a regulation targeting largely untraceable "ghost guns" imposed by Democratic former President Joe Biden's administration. The court last year struck down a federal ban on "bump stock" devices that enable semiautomatic weapons to fire rapidly like machine guns.
Straits Times
5 days ago
- Politics
- Straits Times
US Supreme Court won't review assault weapon, high-capacity magazine bans
FILE PHOTO: A man looks at an AR-15 rife at an exhibition booth during the National Rifle Association (NRA) annual convention in Dallas, Texas, U.S., May 18, 2024. REUTERS/Carlos Barria/File Photo The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear a challenge to the legality of state restrictions on assault-style rifles and large-capacity ammunition magazines, passing up for now cases that offered the justices a chance to further expand gun rights. The justices turned away two appeals after lower courts upheld a ban in Maryland on powerful semi-automatic rifles such as AR-15s and one in Rhode Island restricting the possession of ammunition feeding devices holding more than 10 rounds. The lower courts rejected arguments that the measures violate the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms." Three conservative justices, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, dissented from the court's decision not to hear the cases. A fourth, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in a statement accompanying the Maryland case expressed sympathy for the argument made by the challengers that semiautomatic AR-15s are in common use by "law-abiding citizens and therefore are protected by the Second Amendment." Kavanaugh said the issue will return to the Supreme Court, which "presumably will address the AR–15 issue soon." In a nation bitterly divided over how to address firearms violence including numerous mass shootings, the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, often has taken an expansive view of the Second Amendment. The court broadened gun rights in landmark rulings in 2008, 2010 and in a 2022 case that made it harder to defend gun restrictions under the Second Amendment, requiring them to be "consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation." The challengers in the two cases turned away on Monday by the Supreme Court contended that states and courts are flouting precedents that make clear that the Second Amendment protects weapons that are in "common use." Maryland in 2013 enacted its ban on military-style "assault weapons" such as the AR-15 and AK-47 after a shooter used such a firearm in the 2012 mass killing of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. The law carries a penalty of up to three years in prison. A Maryland resident who is seeking to purchase one of the banned guns, as well as three gun rights organizations including the Firearms Policy Coalition, sued in 2020, claiming the ban violates the Second Amendment. The Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2024 rejected the challenge because it said assault weapons "are military-style weapons designed for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense." As such, the "excessively dangerous" firearms are not protected by the Second Amendment, the 4th Circuit decided. The 4th Circuit said it refused "to wield the Constitution to declare that military-style armaments which have become primary instruments of mass killing and terrorist attacks in the United States are beyond the reach of our nation's democratic processes." The plaintiffs told the Supreme Court that the term "assault weapon" is a political term that is designed to exploit public confusion over machine guns and semi-automatic firearms. The banned weapons, they said, are "identical to any other semiautomatic firearm - arms that are exceedingly common and fully protected by the Second Amendment." Rhode Island's law, passed in 2022 as a response to mass shootings, bars most "large-capacity feeding" devices such as a magazine or drum that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The state calls it a "mild restriction on a particularly dangerous weapons accessory" and that in mass shooting situations, "any pause in fire, such as the pause to switch magazines, allows for precious seconds in which to escape or take defensive action." The law applied retroactively, meaning residents had to surrender or alter any banned magazine that they owned, and carries a penalty of up to five years in prison. Four gun owners and a registered firearms dealer sued, claiming the ban violated their Second Amendment rights, and that having to forfeit the magazines they owned violated the Constitution's prohibition on the government taking property without compensation. In 2024 the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the claims and refused to block the law. The Rhode Island plaintiffs told the Supreme Court that instead of abiding by the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling, the state's law "can only be understood as protest legislation imposing more restrictive bans on long-common arms." The Supreme Court has been buffeted in recent years by challenges to gun restrictions. On March 26, the court upheld a regulation targeting largely untraceable "ghost guns" imposed by Democratic former President Joe Biden's administration. The court last year struck down a federal ban on "bump stock" devices that enable semiautomatic weapons to fire rapidly like machine guns. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
CBS News
5 days ago
- General
- CBS News
Supreme Court rejects challenge to Maryland's assault weapons ban
Washington — The Supreme Court on Monday turned away a challenge to Maryland's ban on so-called assault weapons, leaving intact a lower court ruling that upheld the law. In declining to review the decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, the high court skirts a fight over whether the Second Amendment allows states to regulate the rifles that have been used in a wave of mass shootings. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch disagreed with the Supreme Court's decision to turn away the case. The Supreme Court had already turned away the legal battle over Maryland's law last year because a federal appeals court had yet to rule. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit upheld the measure last August, finding that weapons like the AR-15 could be banned in part because they are outside the scope of the Second Amendment. Maryland's prohibition on certain semiautomatic rifles was enacted in the wake of the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. Under the law, it is a crime to possess, sell, transfer or purchase an "assault long gun" or a "copycat weapon," which encompasses 45 specific guns or their analogues. A variety of semiautomatic handguns and rifles are still allowed, according to the Maryland State Police. In addition to Maryland, nine other states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws restricting semiautomatic weapons. A group of Maryland residents who want to buy rifles covered by the ban, a licensed gun dealer in the state and several pro-Second Amendment groups challenged the law in 2020, arguing that they have a Second Amendment right to own common assault rifles. The federal district court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit upheld the law, likening the banned firearms to the M-16 rifle, which the Supreme Court has said is outside the scope of Second Amendment protection. The Maryland challengers asked the Supreme Court to review that decision, and the high court put consideration on hold while it decided another gun case involving concealed carry rules in New York. In that ruling issued in June 2022, the Supreme Court laid out a framework under which gun laws must be consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearms regulation. That decision has led lower courts to invalidate several long-standing gun restrictions found not to meet the so-called history-and-tradition test. Following its decision in that landmark gun case, the Supreme Court sent the challenge to Maryland's assault weapons back to the appeals court to reconsider the case. After applying that new framework to Maryland's ban, the 4th Circuit concluded last year that the assault weapons ban is constitutional. Focusing on the AR-15 in particular, the appeals court found that it is most useful in military service and can be banned consistent with the Second Amendment. It also rejected the challengers' contention that because the guns covered by Maryland's ban are commonly used, they are protected by the Constitution. Instead, the 4th Circuit said adopting this argument would mean that any dangerous weapon "could gain constitutional protection merely because it becomes popular before the government can sufficiently regulate it." The appeals court also said that the ban is consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearms regulation, as it "is one of many in a storied tradition of legislatures perceiving threats posed by excessively dangerous weapons and regulating commensurately." The challengers again sought the Supreme Court's review, arguing in a filing that the justices should "ensure that the Second Amendment itself is not truncated into a limited right to own certain state-approved means of personal self-defense." They argued the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the U.S. and said the 4th Circuit's ruling "turns a firearm possessed for lawful purposes by millions of Americans into an item with not even presumptive constitutional protection." But Maryland officials urged the court to leave the 4th Circuit's ruling intact, in part because they said it's too soon for the Supreme Court to intervene.
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Judge orders government to report steps it's taken to facilitate Venezuelan man's return to US
A day after a federal appeals court affirmed a court order directing the Trump administration to facilitate the return of a deported 20-year-old Venezuelan man to the United States, the judge overseeing the case has ordered the administration to report "the steps they have taken" to do so. The man, identified in court records by the pseudonym "Cristian," challenged his removal after he was sent in mid-March on a flight to El Salvador after President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act by arguing that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua is a "hybrid criminal state" that is invading the United States. U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher, a Trump appointee, found in April that Cristian's removal violated a class action settlement on behalf of individuals who entered the U.S. as unaccompanied minors then later sought asylum, and she directed the government to take steps toward "aiding, assisting or making easier" Cristian's release and return -- similar to the remedy ordered by the judge in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. MORE: Appeals court sides with Venezuelan man seeking return to US from El Salvador Judge Gallagher on Tuesday said she wants the government to provide, by May 27, a status report that includes Cristian's current physical location and custodial status; what steps, if any, defendants have taken to facilitate Cristian's return to the United States; and what additional steps defendants will take, and when, to facilitate Cristian's return. This is the second time that Gallagher, a 2019 Trump appointee, has asked the government to provide this information; the previous time the government filed a motion asking Gallagher to vacate her order, which she denied. The government then appealed to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for a stay of the order, which was denied on Monday. In her April ruling, Gallagher determined that Cristian's removal to El Salvador was in breach of an existing settlement agreement, finalized in 2024, that protected migrants who entered the U.S. as unaccompanied minors from deportation until there was a final determination on their asylum claims. The administration has argued -- unsuccessfully thus far -- that Cristian's removal under the Alien Enemies Act Proclamation was not a violation of the settlement agreement, and that Cristian is an admitted Tren de Aragua member, which he denies. Responding to Monday's ruling by the 4th Circuit, Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement, "We strongly disagree with the Court's ruling. No error was made in this individual's return. This alien is a self-admitted Tren de Aragua gang member and illegal alien from Venezuela. Along with millions of other illegal aliens, he crossed our border illegally under the previous administration." "The President and Secretary Noem will not allow a foreign terrorist organization to operate on American soil," McLaughlin said. "If the court forces his return, he will be removed again." Judge orders government to report steps it's taken to facilitate Venezuelan man's return to US originally appeared on
