South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley is echoing a Republican effort to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to take up a Maryland case centered on a decade-old ban on certain firearms.
An all-Republican coalition, led by Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador and supported by Jackley, 25 other attorneys general, and the leaders of the Arizona and Wisconsin legislatures, petitioned the Supreme Court through an amicus brief submitted on Monday to review Snope v. Brown, a Maryland-based challenge to the state’s Firearm Safety Act of 2013.
The 2013 Maryland statute prohibits the possession, sale, transfer, purchase and receipt of a variety of “assault weapons.” This includes certain AR-15s, one of the most popular rifles enjoyed by American gun owners and a weapon employed in a number of mass shootings in the U.S.; other firearms, like the Barrett .50 caliber rifle and the AK-47, are also included in the ban. The law also placed a 10-round limit on gun magazines.
The law was upheld by a majority of federal Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals judges on Aug. 6. Gun rights groups petitioned for a Supreme Court review on Aug. 21.
“This ruling is an infringement on our Second Amendment rights,” Jackley said in a Thursday press release. “Law-abiding citizens have a guaranteed, individual right to firearms, including for sport and self-defense, under the United States Constitution.”
Maryland plaintiffs, including gun rights groups, previously requested the Supreme Court address the challenge prior to the lower court’s ruling in May, but the judicial tribunal declined at the time, according to The Associated Press.
The petitioning attorneys general cited their respective state’s inability to sell the listed weapons in Maryland; the prohibition against out-of-state citizens using the weapons in Maryland; and Second Amendment protections as the reasons for their interest in the matter.
“The Court should reject this latest attempt to give a critical constitutional right “second-class” status,” the attorneys generals wrote in the court filling. “Without correction, the Fourth Circuit’s decision will muddle the clear Second Amendment standards that this Court has adopted. And its decision will encourage other governments to erode Americans’ essential right to keep and bear arms.”
The majority opinion from the Virginia-based appeals court concluded that “military-style” firearms — like the AR-15 — do not have Second Amendment protections because “they are designed for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense.” The justices also pointed to nation’s historical efforts in regulating certain “exceptionally dangerous weapons,” like Bowie knives and metal knuckles.
The coalition argued in its brief that the “military-style” firearms are still considered “arms” and thus protected under the Second Amendment. The attorneys general also contended the appeals court’s decision lacked context in determining whether certain weapons are “exceptionally dangerous” and also “unusual.”
“There is no American historical tradition that lets governments ban whatever firearms they deem ‘dangerous,'” the attorneys general wrote.
Multiple gun rights groups, including the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Law Center, filed similar petitions on Monday.
The states listed in the amicus brief include: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming, as well as the Arizona and Wisconsin Legislatures.
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes and her Wisconsin counterpart, Josh Kaul, both Democrats, are not listed as supporters in the brief.