Gun rights groups lose bid to block Delaware assault weapons ban
Adds comments from parties in paragraphs 4, 15
By Nate Raymond
July 15 (Reuters) -A federal appeals court on Monday rejected a bid by gun rights groups to block Delaware's bans on assault weapons and high-capacity firearm magazines in light of a major U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2022 that expanded gun rights.
A three-judge panel of the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a judge's decision to not issue a preliminary injunction sought by the groups blocking the Democratic-led state's laws before the case could reach a trial on the merits.
Those laws were enacted in June 2022 and ban numerous semiautomatic firearms like the AR-15 and large-capacity magazines that can hold more than 17 rounds of ammunition.
"The gun lobby’s crusade against common sense gun safety policy has once again proven to be an expensive failure: Delaware’s gun safety laws all remain on the books," Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings, a Democrat, said in a statement.
Similar assault weapons bans have been challenged in other states including California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland and New York.
Groups including the National Rifle Association-affiliated Delaware State Sportsmen's Association argued Delaware's laws violated individuals' rights to keep and bear arms under the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment.
They cited the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen to argue there is no historical tradition that would justify banning semi-automatic firearms owned by millions of Americans for self-defense.
The Supreme Court in June's United States v. Rahimi clarified the historical legal test the Bruen ruling established by making clear that modern gun restrictions do not require a "historical twin" in order to be lawful.
But U.S. Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas, writing for the panel, did not mention Rahimi or even address the merits of the groups' case as he instead chided them for trying to obtain a pre-trial injunction while a case is ongoing, a remedy he said should be reserved for "drastic situations."
Courts routinely issue such preliminary injunctions to block laws, regulations and policies. At times, the injunctions have blocked policies nationwide, prompting debate in Congress and the judiciary itself over their scope.
Bibas, though, said courts have "strayed" from the primary purpose of using such injunctions to prevent a case from becoming moot before a final order can be issued and that the "wiser course" is to deny requests for preliminary injunctions.
"A preliminary injunction is not a first bite at the merits," Bibas, an appointee of Republican former President Donald Trump, wrote. "Rather, it is an extraordinary, equitable remedy designed to protect the court's ability to see the case through. It risks cementing hasty first impressions."
U.S. Circuit Judge Jane Richards Roth, an appointee of Republican former President George H.W. Bush, concurred with Bibas' decision, though she said she believed on the merits the state's bans were constitutional.
She said that was because assault weapons are not in her view "arms" protected by the Second Amendment for use by citizens for lawful purpose but "weapons of war" that are most useful in military service.
The gun rights groups also included the Firearms Policy Coalition and Second Amendment Foundation.
"We look forward to continuing to fight these egregious bans and winning Second Amendment freedoms for Delawareans," Second Amendment Foundation Executive Director Adam Kraut said in a statement.
The case is Delaware State Sportsmen's Association Inc v. Delaware Department of Safety and Homeland Security, 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 23-1633.
For Delaware: David Ross of Ross Aronstam & Moritz
For amici states: Jeremy Feigenbaum of the Office of Attorney General of New Jersey
For Delaware State Sportsmen's Association: Erin Murphy of Clement & Murphy
For Second Amendment Foundation: John Ohlendorf of Cooper & Kirk
Read more:
US appeals court questions bid to block Delaware assault weapons ban
U.S. Supreme Court asked to end Maryland's assault weapons ban
US appeals court upholds Illinois assault weapons ban
US appeals court keeps California assault weapons ban in force
Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston
Últimas noticias
Descargo de responsabilidades: Cada una de las entidades de XM Group proporciona un servicio de solo ejecución y acceso a nuestra plataforma de trading online, permitiendo a una persona ver o usar el contenido disponible en o a través del sitio web, sin intención de cambiarlo ni ampliarlo. Dicho acceso y uso están sujetos en todo momento a: (i) Términos y Condiciones; (ii) Advertencias de riesgo; y (iii) Descargo completo de responsabilidades. Por lo tanto, dicho contenido se proporciona exclusivamente como información general. En particular, por favor tenga en cuenta que, los contenidos de nuestra plataforma de trading online no son ni solicitud ni una oferta para entrar a realizar transacciones en los mercados financieros. Operar en cualquier mercado financiero implica un nivel de riesgo significativo para su capital.
Todo el material publicado en nuestra plataforma de trading online tiene únicamente fines educativos/informativos y no contiene –y no debe considerarse que contenga– asesoramiento ni recomendaciones financieras, tributarias o de inversión, ni un registro de nuestros precios de trading, ni una oferta ni solicitud de transacción con instrumentos financieros ni promociones financieras no solicitadas.
Cualquier contenido de terceros, así como el contenido preparado por XM, como por ejemplo opiniones, noticias, investigaciones, análisis, precios, otras informaciones o enlaces a sitios de terceros que figuran en este sitio web se proporcionan “tal cual”, como comentarios generales del mercado y no constituyen un asesoramiento en materia de inversión. En la medida en que cualquier contenido se interprete como investigación de inversión, usted debe tener en cuenta y aceptar que dicho contenido no fue concebido ni elaborado de acuerdo con los requisitos legales diseñados para promover la independencia en materia de investigación de inversiones y, por tanto, se considera como una comunicación comercial en virtud de las leyes y regulaciones pertinentes. Por favor, asegúrese de haber leído y comprendido nuestro Aviso sobre investigación de inversión no independiente y advertencia de riesgo en relación con la información anterior, al que se puede acceder aquí.
