Should this Court decline to grant certiorari to consider the constitutionality of Maryland’s assault weapons ban where (1) that ban is consistent with this Court’s recognition in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), that jurisdictions may ban “weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like”; (2) the Fourth Circuit faithfully applied New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), to conclude that Maryland’s law is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of “regulating those weapons that were invented for offensive purposes and were ultimately proven to pose exceptional dangers to innocent civilians,” Pet. App. 69a; and (3) there is no need to resolve a conflict among the lower courts? [More]
Translation: Tyrannical Maryland Democrats want the Supreme Court to turn a blind eye to the state’s willingness to imprison and/or kill citizens for defying unconstitutional diktats and claiming their birthrights.
[Via Jess]
“that ban is consistent with this Court’s recognition in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), that jurisdictions may ban “weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like”
No one has ever explained to me how this is consistent with US v. Miller’s precisely opposite finding that 2A protection is specific to arms “useful to the militia.”