NRA, NSSF et al. File Suit Against Maryland’s Assault Weapons Ban

Ban modern sporting rifles? AR you kidding? (courtesy associatedgunclubs.org)

Press release from the Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore:

Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, Inc., Maryland Licensed Firearms Dealers Association, Maryland Shall Issue, Inc., Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association, National Shooting Sports Foundation, and several firearms dealers and individual Maryland citizens, have filed suit today to stop the implementation Tuesday of Maryland’s planned ban on certain common and popular semiautomatic long guns and restriction on purchase or sale of magazines with a capacity in excess of ten rounds . . .

The Maryland Firearm Safety Act of 2013, alternatively known as SB 281 (the “Act”), will ban the purchase, transportation or receipt of any of the listed semi-automatic firearms after October 1, 2013. Additionally, the Act will ban the purchase or sale in the state of Maryland of any detachable magazine for either rifles or pistols that holds in excess of ten rounds after October 1, 2013.

The lawsuit, filed today in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, requests immediate emergency injunctive relief in the form of a Temporary Restraining Order because the Act is an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment right of the law-abiding, responsible citizens of Maryland to choose effective firearms for defense in the home.

The Maryland citizens filing this lawsuit wish to express gratitude for the assistance and guidance of the NRA in fighting for the Second Amendment rights of all Marylanders. Together we are drawing a line in the sand where Maryland’s gun control agenda tramples the fundamental individual right to defend oneself and family in the home.

John H. Josselyn

Legislative Vice President

Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, Inc.

[h/t Danny C.]

comments

  1. avatar Jay1987 says:

    Thank God Maryland is waking up!!

    1. avatar jwestham says:

      Maryland has been awake, it’s the unfortunate situation that Baltimore controls the rest of the state. Just like here in NY, NYC + Long Island control the rest of NY.

      1. avatar Cknarf says:

        We have Shitcago, we feel your pain. The people of IL have done a great job fighting any push for new gun control.

        1. avatar jwestham says:

          Yes they have. We’re making the push here in NY. Hoping SCOTUS rules in our favor. Not that it would stop anyone anyway.

        2. avatar Stephen M. says:

          haha Shitcago. So, shit and Spanish shit?

        3. avatar int19h says:

          Are you saying that Chicago is not inhabited by people, or that they are not citizens of the state of Illinois?

      2. avatar Aaron says:

        Ditto with San Fran/Sac/LA.

        1. avatar Avid Reader says:

          And Denver/Boulder with Colorado…

      3. avatar Bobby says:

        Not just Bmore. Don’t forget HoCo, Anne Arundle, MoCo and of course PG, a county that pales in gun violence only to Baltimore city. But they should be telling the rest of us what to do since they’ve obviously got their stuff so put together.

        1. avatar Jus Bill says:

          As a Pee Gee resident, I object. We obviously have the finest County Council that money can buy. Why, even my delegate, who I didn’t vote for, has no direct way for me to contact her. Unless she goes to jail for that little misunderstanding about misspent funds, that is…

          We are a shining beacon of freedom in the great state.
          /sarc

        2. avatar janklow says:

          trying to figure out why Anne Arundel is on your list, quite frankly; when your list includes it and PG, Montgomery and Baltimore County… one of those things is not like the others

      4. avatar int19h says:

        That would be because Baltimore is most of the state, population-wise. Ditto NYC in NY, LA/SF in CA, and so on. I understand not being happy about these policies, but this is the direct outcome of how the political system in this country is set up, combined with the overall urbanization trend that has been going for the last 150 years, and is not stopping anytime soon.

      5. avatar sdog says:

        Prince George’s County, Montgomery country, then bmore. In term of “waking up,” 2a folks have been pulling all nighters, the entrenchment of Dems and the one party rule in this state is difficult for folks outside the state to comprehend. It permeates all facets of life here.

        from 2a issues, to our lovely new “rain tax,” yes we are now going to be taxed fro the rain run off from on people’s property now.

        1. avatar Jus Bill says:

          And don’t forget that our Commissar, I mean Governor, wants to be President some day. O’Malley needs to focus on something more attainable, like continuing to be Bloomberg’s footstool, or becoming a dentist or something. China looks free compared to us.

  2. avatar Mike Crognale says:

    Good luck. Is there a link for donations?

    1. avatar Ron Smith says:

      We have some serious 2A issues here in Maryland and have twice sued the Maryland State Police. The first time in July, the case was put in abeyance as MSP rolled over and agreed to stipulate to the letter of the law. The second time was last week, we filed suit and sought a TRO. The TRO was not granted because MSP rolled over at the last minute, admitted they broke state and Federal law and assured the court they had stopped the practice. That did not prevent the suit from being heard seeking permanent injunctive relief and damages, the decision is due tomorrow. The second suit was for a massive breach of the Personally Identifying Information of 38,000 individuals, this is a well beyond serious issue.

      Today the third lawsuit was filed, this time a broad Constitutional suit against the new Maryland gun grab called bill SB281 due to go into effect October 1st. There is a link to the full 34 page complaint in the article below.

      All the work and base funding for these suits come from grassroots organizations, people like you and me doing the grunt work and making donations. We do get some matching funds and sometimes some legal help from national organizations but the bulk of the work and money is from plain old everyday people. We need help from our brothers and sisters across America because there are more suits to follow in the coming days and weeks, every single one of the suits could have to be taken as far as SCOTUS and that costs. These cases can set national precedent. To be blunt, we need money in the form of donations to some of our state level groups leading the fight. Any amount will do, even as little as $5, please send us the cost of one box of ammo if you can.

      To donate you can go online to the first group and it will go right to the litigation fund. The other two you can send a check or money order and mark in the comment line “Maryland Litigation Fund” and it will go to this and the upcoming lawsuits.

      Maryland Shall Issue
      https://marylandshallissue.com/joindonate-now/

      AGC, make checks payable to AGC and write Litigation Fund in the comment line then mail to:
      John H. Josselyn, Legislative Vice President
      Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, Inc.
      Legislative Office
      PO Box 20102
      Towson, MD 21284-0102

      Maryland Licensed Firearms Dealers Association, makes checks payable to MLFDA and write Litigation Fund in the comment line then mail to:
      MLFDA c/o:
      Shooter’s Discount
      401 Center St. Ste 101
      Mt. Airy, MD 21771

  3. avatar pk in AZ says:

    Happy to hear!

  4. avatar Cliff H says:

    “The lawsuit, filed today in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, requests immediate emergency injunctive relief in the form of a Temporary Restraining Order because the Act is an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment right of the law-abiding, responsible citizens of Maryland to choose effective firearms for defense in the home.”

    I really fear that they have in fact worded their complaint this way, since they used the term, “…in the home.” TWICE in this article, but this is a BAD precedent! The point is that the laws are unconstitutional on their face, not that people in Maryland should be “allowed” to have these weapons in their homes. I have it memorized, but I just looked it up again to be sure and, yep, just as I thought, the Second Amendment does not contain the words “in the home” anywhere. It DOES contain those magic words that strike fear into the heart of every statist politician: “…shall not be infringed.”

    1. avatar Edward Lentz says:

      Its because the Heller decision explicitly upheld the right to own guns in the home and did not mention outside of the home. The right to bear guns outside of the home has not been ruled upon by SCOTUS and has been ruled on differently by different state and district courts. The lawsuit is on much stronger grounds sticking to in the home.

      1. avatar Cliff H says:

        I thought the ruling that forced Illinois to institute a concealed weapons policy covered the whole “outside the home” question. Sorry, I do not remember the name of that case, but I’m sure it addressed this issue.

        1. avatar Edward Lentz says:

          Sure, I know the case. The 7th circuit ruled 2A extended outside of the home. But at the same time a recent Maryland may issue case,4th circuit, ruled that even if may issue violated 2A outside of the home, there was still precedent to regulate carry, and applied intermediate scrutiny to uphold may issue.

          Like I said, there is a split among the lower courts and we need SCOTUS to step up and settle the issue.

          By sticking to in the home ownership this new case is on much stronger grounds as SCOTUS as explicitly ruled on this in Heller v DC. Courts really like narrow rulings.

          Oh, and for whats its worth I am not a lawyer.

        2. avatar NWBR says:

          That was a 7th Circuit decision and is non-binding precedent for the U.S. Courts in the 4th Circuit. It’s likely that the 4th Circuit’s interpretation of the Heller decision will be fairly (or unfairly) constrained in contrast to the 7th Circuit’s. It, however, creates a split among the circuits, which increases the likelihood that the Supreme Court take additional cases under review.

        3. avatar Mark N. says:

          The Seventh Circuit case is Moore v. Madigan. On the other side of the coin is Woollard, aMaryland case challenging Maryland’s “may issue” CCW system. Maryland requires a showing of “good cause” to carry outside the home. The federal trial court concluded that the only “good cause” needed to exercise the 2A right is the right itself, but the 4th Circuit reversed. It ruled that it did NOT find that there was a right to carry weapons for immediate self defense outside the home, BUT EVEN IF there was such a right, the Maryland statute passed intermediated review. There are similar cases in the Second (NY) and #d Circuit courts of appeal, essentially holding that until the SCOTUS explicitly holds that there is a right outside the home, they would decline to recognize it. All federal trial courts in those districts are bound by those decisions. Against this background, the tack taken in this case seems wise, as it avoids dismissal on irrelevant issues, instead relying on a recognized and indisputable right..

    2. avatar treefroggy says:

      Marylanders are still fighting the concealed carry issue , ( Woolard ) and waiting for SCOTUS to issue a cert , hence I’m sure nobody wants to risk arguing the inside vs outside the home issue with that very issue in potential play . No doubt the principals in that suit were probably consulted . Inside vs outside is THE core of the Woolard arguement I believe .

  5. avatar Ralph says:

    We might win in the District Court, but in the Circuit Court hates guns and we will lose.

    Scalia recently opined that the next SCOTUS case would be about which guns we would be “allowed” to own. This might be it.

    1. avatar Accur81 says:

      Ralph, I hope it is. I would love to see SCOTUS strike down AWB, May issue, and a host of asinine gun laws. Heck, I might even stay in CA a little longer if’n they do.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Why do I get the feeling that California would refuse to comply with such a favorable SCOTUS ruling?

  6. avatar dwb says:

    just the first step. the courts are about as anti gun as anti gun as the legislature.

  7. avatar Davis Thompson says:

    Let’s hope John Roberts doesn’t f**k us again when this gets to the supremes.

  8. avatar Nathan.B says:

    this law was passed half a year ago. wth took so long?

    1. avatar Craig says:

      Courts are a slow process. Also, you can’t sue unless someone’s been injured in some way; their rights, financially, physical injuries. You also can’t run down to the courthouse screaming “VIOLATION OF RIGHTS!!!” without a plan.

    2. The Government… duh…

      Actually I don’t really know. The main tenets of the health care law which shall not be named were challenged well before they were made effective… not that the body of law that shall not be named will ever be “effective”…

  9. avatar Jahead1982 says:

    Adam Winkler, UCLA professor may be anti gun, but he is smart, and he has repeatedly said that any case brought before the US Supreme court on semi-auto rifles banned because they are ugly, will lose due to the COMMON USE defined in Miller vs US 1939.

    Even funnier is that the antis by going after the AR 15 platform, made them more desirable and in COMMON USE, LOL!

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      “Even funnier is that the antis by going after the AR 15 platform, made them more desirable and in COMMON USE, LOL!”

      I have often had the exact same thought.

  10. avatar Pat says:

    If any of you morons on this forum voted libtard (democrat)….ya git what ya git.
    Elections have consequences…..Obummercare, gun grabbing.

    1. avatar JW says:

      Don’t forget the guilt of Republicans for Reagan banning new selective fire weapons (1986) and Georgie Seniors ban of imported firearms. Give me a break. Really. Both parties are threatened by law abiding citizens bearing arms because they are not law abiding. It is time we stop letting either party divide Americans over their Constitutional Rights. Their Caesarian tactics need to be defeated by unity. I, for one, support your rights, not matter who you voted for.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        I second that thought. The GOVERNMENT is anti-gun, irrespective party affiliation. Guns are a constant threat of insurrection and revolt. Which is precisely what the Founders intended. But that doesn’t mean that the GOVERNMENT won’t try to rig the deck, tilt the table, or your own favorite metaphor for cheating.

      2. avatar Ralph says:

        Enough of the anti-Republican bullsh1t already. Republicans do gun control, but Democrats own it. Any statement to the contrary is a false flag.

        1. avatar Accur81 says:

          Word. Red states – decent gun laws. Blue states – sh!t gun laws. If someone can blow that out of the water, I might be inclined to think that Dems and Repubs think the same way a out guns. They don’t.

        2. avatar benny says:

          So? It’s anti government either way. Republican, democrat, who the hell cares?? Both parties are guilty in their own way. I’m anti-gun grabber. Nuff said.

        3. avatar Pat says:

          Bingo, Ralph. It (gun control) is a MAJOR effing platform for the libtard (democrat) party. Don’t you morons who think that “they are all the same” get that?

      3. avatar Pat says:

        If ya voted for Barry, ya voted with the gun control party (libtards/democrats). The GOP does not have gun control high on their list of desires like the libtards. Wise up.

    2. avatar int19h says:

      Pat, I’d vote “libturd” just so that you have an extra fit.

      1. avatar Pat says:

        Libturd almost sounds better than Libtard. Almost the same thing.

    3. avatar shawn says:

      Cheney shot someone in the face and got away with it.

      1. avatar Jahead1982 says:

        Holder killed several hundred and got away with it, so whats your point?

  11. avatar Rob G says:

    Has there been any updates to this appeal?

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email