logo
    • Magazine
    • Membership
    • Donate
  • Racial Justice
  • Economic Justice
    • Collections
  • Climate Justice
  • Health Justice
  • Leadership
  • CONTENT TYPES
  • Subscribe
  • Webinars
    • Upcoming Webinars
    • Complimentary Webinars
    • Premium On-Demand Webinars
  • Membership
  • Submissions

Maryland Court Rules: No Need for Assault Weapons

Erin Rubin
February 23, 2017
Share
Tweet
Share
Email
Print

February 22, 2017; Reuters

A blow was struck for common-sense gun legislation on Tuesday when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld Maryland’s ban on assault rifles, ruling that Americans do not have the right to possess “weapons of war.”

Maryland is one of seven states (plus the District of Columbia) that bans assault weapons. Minnesota and Virginia regulate assault weapons, but do not ban them.

As NPQ has previously pointed out, virtually unfettered access to assault weapons across most of the United States is one of the biggest reasons for the astronomical number of yearly American gun deaths. In a study of mass shootings from 1982–2017, Mother Jones found that about half of the weapons used in mass shootings were obtained legally, assault weapons accounted for over 70 percent of the weapons used, and shootings with assault weapons accounted for 82 percent of deaths.

Assault weapons with detachable magazines allow users to fire hundreds of rounds of ammunition per minute, spraying bullets over a large area and causing multiple deaths much faster than anyone can hope to react. As Gail Collins pointed out in the New York Times:

It’s very, very difficult to draw, aim and shoot accurately when you’re under severe stress. It’s one of the reasons that police officers so often spray fleeing suspects with bullets. They can’t hit a moving target, even though they get far more weapons training than your normal armed civilian.

Sign up for our free newsletters

Subscribe to NPQ's newsletters to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

By signing up, you agree to our privacy policy and terms of use, and to receive messages from NPQ and our partners.

The NRA’s assertion that more guns increase safety is sheer fiction, and dangerous fiction at that. (You might even call it an alternative fact.) Western European countries have strict gun control laws, and the highest death rate, in Portugal, is one-sixth that of the United States. More guns mean more gun deaths—it’s that simple.

As Collins and others have pointed out, the NRA has descended to lobbying for the right to carry guns in churches, in schools, on playgrounds, and in bars (which seems especially problematic). Nearly half of states “now have laws allowing people to shoot anyone they feel is putting them in imminent physical danger, whether they’re at home, in a bar or on the street being hassled by an irritating panhandler.” In 2015, the NRA ran a campaign arguing that guns on college campuses would reduce instances of sexual assault, which they called “Refuse To Be A Victim.” For today, we will skip over the assumption, implicit in that slogan, that people who do not carry guns are choosing to be victims of rape, but it is indicative of the illogical hawkishness with which the NRA campaigns.

The baseline defense for gun ownership is that it is a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In fact, interpretation of this clause changed in 2008, when the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller to overturn a strict handgun ban. Prior to that case, the court relied on a collective interpretation of the amendment, meaning that it protects “‘a well regulated Militia’ to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state’s right to self-defense,” and does not impede Congress from restricting individuals’ gun ownership.

For a brief period, Congress did indeed federally regulate weapons. In 1994, Congress enacted the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, restricting the “manufacture, transfer, and possession of certain semiautomatic assault weapons” and enforcing a “ban of large capacity ammunition feeding devices.” It also prohibited “the possession of a handgun or ammunition by, or the private transfer of a handgun or ammunition to, a juvenile.”

Unfortunately, the law included a sunset clause, and after Congress declined to renew it in 2004, all of those things—the sale and possession of semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, and the possession of guns and ammunition by children—became legal unless banned by an individual state.

Gallup polls show that 55 percent of Americans support common-sense gun laws, but that hasn’t stopped the NRA from pouring millions of dollars into lobbying efforts against any type of restrictions. The Maryland ban may go to the Supreme Court in another round of appeals, but for now, 55 percent of Maryland’s citizens can breathe a bit easier.— Erin Rubin

Share
Tweet
Share
Email
Print
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Erin Rubin

Erin Rubin was an assistant editor at the Nonprofit Quarterly, where she was in charge of online editorial coordination and community building. Before joining NPQ, in 2016, Erin worked as an administrator at Harvard Business School and as an editorial project manager at Pearson Education, where she helped develop a digital resource library for remedial learners. Erin has also worked with David R. Godine, Publishers, and the Association of Literary Scholars, Critics, and Writers. As a creative lead with the TEDxBeaconStreet organizing team, she worked to help innovators and changemakers share their groundbreaking ideas and turn them into action.

More about: Gun ControlNonprofit NewsPolicy

Become a member

Support independent journalism and knowledge creation for civil society. Become a member of Nonprofit Quarterly.

Members receive unlimited access to our archived and upcoming digital content. NPQ is the leading journal in the nonprofit sector written by social change experts. Gain access to our exclusive library of online courses led by thought leaders and educators providing contextualized information to help nonprofit practitioners make sense of changing conditions and improve infra-structure in their organizations.

Join Today
logo logo logo logo logo
See comments

NPQ_Winter_2022Subscribe Today
You might also like
Cancelling Student Debt Is Necessary for Racial Justice
Kitana Ananda
To Save Legal Aid, Expand Public Service Loan Forgiveness
Zoë Polk
No Justice, No Peace of Mind and Body: The Health Impacts of Housing Insecurity for Black Women
Jhumpa Bhattacharya, Maile Chand and Andrea Flynn
The Human Impact of the Global Refugee Crisis Must Be Understood—And Acted Upon
Anmol Irfan
Black Americans Need Reparations: The Fight for the CTC Highlights the Roadblocks
Jhumpa Bhattacharya and Trevor Smith
Edgar Cahn’s Second Act: Time Banking and the Return of Mutual Aid
Steve Dubb

Upcoming Webinars

Group Created with Sketch.
February 23rd, 2 pm ET

Worker Power in the Social Sector

Register Now
Group Created with Sketch.
March 15th, 2 pm ET

Remaking the Economy

Caring for the Care Economy

Register Now
You might also like
Cancelling Student Debt Is Necessary for Racial Justice
Kitana Ananda
To Save Legal Aid, Expand Public Service Loan Forgiveness
Zoë Polk
No Justice, No Peace of Mind and Body: The Health Impacts of...
Jhumpa Bhattacharya, Maile Chand and Andrea Flynn

Like what you see?

Subscribe to the NPQ newsletter to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

See our newsletters

By signing up, you agree to our privacy policy and terms of use, and to receive messages from NPQ and our partners.

Independent & in your mailbox.

Subscribe today and get a full year of NPQ for just $59.

subscribe
  • About
  • Contact
  • Advertise
  • Copyright
  • Careers

We are using cookies to give you the best experience on our website.

 

Non Profit News | Nonprofit Quarterly
Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.

If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.