Two Second Amendment cases from Florida and Maryland were declined by SCOTUS which will leave bans on open-carry and assault weapons in force.
I will pass on the FL open-carry case, arguments for and against have been going on forever in the pro-2A community. Some believe it’s a good deterrent, yet make the argument those open-carrying make themselves a target. Others feel it’s better not to advertise if one is armed or not as it will make criminals think twice.
With respect to the Maryland case that address “assault weapons” and large capacity magazines, the original 4th Circuit court ruled said “the Second Amendment doesn’t protect military-style gear.” This is categorically untrue. The Founding Fathers very intent was to see the people were as well armed as the military for the exact purpose, should it be necessary to thwart an out of control government. At the time the Second Amendment was written a musket was what was available to both the military and civilians, it was “military-style gear”. Semiautomatic weapons existed as well in the 18th c., but the technology was not at a level that was cost-effective or practical, fact remains they existed.
It is not wise for SCOTUS to refuse hearing these cases. Sooner or later they will have to be addressed as there are far too many legal scholars making up what they think the Foundered intended when all they have to do is read their own words on the subject.
“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty …. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.”
– Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
– Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”
– James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
Supreme Court shoots down gun cases, upholds ban on assault weapons and open-carry
The Supreme Court announced Monday it had declined to hear two Second Amendment cases, leaving intact gun control laws in Maryland that restrict the types of weapons that can be bought, and in Florida that largely prevent gun owners from carrying their weapons in the open.
The justices denied both cases without comment, leaving in place lower-court rulings upholding the two laws.
Eric Friday, who represented gun owners in the Florida case, said he thought the court’s Second Amendment supporters were making a strategic decision in refusing to hear the cases, keeping their powder dry for later, when they may have more support on the high court.
“This fight for the Second Amendment is not a short-term fight, this is a long-term fight,” Mr. Friday told The Washington Times. “We are not going to quit just because the Supreme Court didn’t take two cases.”
The Florida case involved a challenge to the state’s ban on open carry, which extends to even those licensed to carry a concealed weapon.
Dale Norman challenged the law after he was arrested and fined for brandishing his firearm holster, which was visible while he was walking down the street. He argued prohibiting open carry violated his constitutional rights, but the Florida Supreme Court sided with the state.
In the Maryland case, gun owners had challenged the state’s ban on some semiautomatic rifles and large-capacity ammunition magazines. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected those complaints, saying the Second Amendment doesn’t protect military-style gear.
“Put simply we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war,” wrote Circuit Judge Robert B. King in the opinion. [Read More]