Another Second Amendment Opinion: This One Matters
Feb. 12, 2016 (Mimesis Law) — The Second Amendment. The right to bear arms. Itâ€™s the constitutional amendment everybody loves to hate, or loves to love. There are strong feelings on both sides. Itâ€™s been a hot topic this week at Fault Lines. Ken Womble says itâ€™s time to discuss repealing it. I say leave it alone. Scott Greenfield doesnâ€™t like guns, but he likes the Constitution.
Opinions from three guys. While they make for interesting reading, there is another opinion you should know about. A different group of three guys had their own little Second Amendment debate. Not bloggers, though. These guys are judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit decided Kolbe v. Hogan last week. Next time you debate gun rights, if you want to actually understand what you are talking about, this is the opinion to read.
The opinion is 90 pages long. In this new Internet world, thatâ€™s about 89 pages longer than most people have the patience for. When you are trolling around on the Internet, commenting on articles written by people who know what they are talking about, a little knowledge wonâ€™t kill you. These debates donâ€™t happen in a vacuum. There are real cases with real people that matter. So here is what you need to know about the Fourth Circuitâ€™s newest gun control opinion.
First, letâ€™s meet the Fourth Circuit. Itâ€™s a federal appellate court. Federal court is where the serious shit goes down. Shinier floors, more security, smarter judges. Federal court is for real cases and important issues. When you lose there, you go from the federal district court to one of the thirteen United States Courts of Appeal. The Fourth Circuit covers South Carolina up to Maryland. Next stop after the Fourth Circuit is the United States Supreme Court.
The Fourth Circuit is historically known for being a conservative court. Some claim it is becoming more liberal. Those people are crazy. Or donâ€™t practice law. Or both. But they have definitely not gone to Richmond and caught an ass-whipping or they would know there is nothing liberal about the Fourth Circuit.
So what exactly was the Court deciding last week in Kolbe? The constitutionality of an â€śassault weaponsâ€ť ban. The state of Maryland passed the Firearm Safety Act. The Maryland law banned â€śassault long guns,â€ť â€śassault pistols,â€ť and â€ścopycat weapons.â€ť It also banned detachable magazines that held more than ten rounds. The plaintiffs challenging the law were two individuals and two businesses.
One plaintiff, Kolbe, owns a small business in Baltimore County and wants a semi-automatic rifle for self-defense. Another plaintiff, Turner, is an injured Navy veteran who wants a detachable magazine for self-defense reasons. Two other plaintiffs are businesses that sell guns. Not fly-by-night shady corner gun shops. Winkâ€™s Sporting Goods and Atlantic Guns are legitimate sporting goods stores in Maryland.
Why the lawsuit? Specifically, the plaintiffs object to the ban on â€śassault long gunsâ€ť which are semiautomatic rifles and large capacity magazines. To be exact, the ban applies to AR-15s, AK-47s, and any gun that copies those styles of rifle, as well as the magazines that carry more than ten rounds.
The Fourth Circuitâ€™s majority opinion, written by Chief Judge William Traxler and Judge Steven Agee, explains exactly how the Court goes about considering the attempted limitation of a constitutional right. Note that they donâ€™t blabber about natural rights or quibble with the Constitutionâ€™s effect. They actually reason through the issue, which is not at all a bad way to reach an opinion.
The words of the Second Amendment are short:
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Never have so many argued so much about so few words. But the Fourth Circuit keeps its focus, rather than going down the rabbit hole of social debate over mass shootings or gun battles with the police. The Court considers two questions:
[W]hether the challenged law imposes a burden on conduct falling within the scope of the Second Amendmentâ€™s guaranteeâ€¦
[What is] an appropriate form of means-end scrutinyâ€¦
In other words, is the law an infringement on the Second Amendment and if so, how should the court consider it?
As is now well understood, Heller affirmed that the Second Amendment protects a preexisting â€śindividual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.â€ť
â€śDeeply rooted in this Nationâ€™s history and traditionâ€ťâ€¦this right is among the â€śfundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.â€ť
Â While the right to bear arms historically includes self-defense and hunting, the real deal with the Second Amendment is self-defense. And the right is most powerfully connected to a personâ€™s home, which is where one is most entitled to self-defense. The Fourth Circuit recognized this powerful right as the primary concern of the peopleâ€™s right to bear arms:
The Supreme Court has already performed an historical analysis of our traditional understanding of a citizenâ€™s right to keep a weapon at home for self-defense, concluding that â€śthe right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and homeâ€ť lies at the core of the Second Amendment.
The Court found the two items at issue, semi-automatic rifles and large capacity magazines, are commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. In short, a bunch of people have semi-automatic rifles, and a bunch of people have magazines that hold more than ten rounds. Those people donâ€™t have these items for sinister or illegal purposes; they have them for self-defense.
The Court also rejected an argument that an unusually dangerous weapon would fall outside of the Second Amendmentâ€™s protection. Ignoring the mass shooting hysteria both the district court and the dissent fell for, the Court recognized that there was no valid way to determine how dangerous a weapon was.
The Fourth Circuit says people have the right to defend their homes and, within reason, defend their homes the way they want to defend them. A ban on certain classes of weapons directly affects that freedom to defend a home the way a citizen chooses. So the ban conflicts with the Second Amendment.
Finding the Maryland ban implicated the Second Amendment, the Court was faced with what to do about it. There are two types of scrutiny, or levels of review, that could be applied. Intermediate scrutiny, which is how the district court looked at the matter, requires a reasonable fit between a regulation and a substantial government objective. Strict scrutiny, on the other hand, requires the government to use the least restrictive means possible to achieve a compelling government interest.
There is a pretty big difference between the two. One is â€śyeah close enoughâ€ť and the other is â€śbe careful, thatâ€™s the constitution you are screwing with.â€ť
So here is how the case ends up.
â€¦the FSAâ€™s ban on semi-automatic rifles and larger-capacity magazines burdens the availability and use of a class of arms for self-defense in the home, where the protection afforded by the Second Amendment is at its greatest.Â
Banning law-abiding citizens from owning the most popular type of semi-automatic rifles sold in the United States creates a Second Amendment problem. There are legitimate reasons for preferring these weapons for home defense, including accuracy, recoil, and reloading. The Court says itâ€™s your house, you get to pick how to defend it.
Strict scrutiny puts a much higher burden on the government to support its actions. And in the Fourth Circuit, the government couldnâ€™t meet that burden when it comes to banning popular guns. While it sounds like the Court can live with regulation, it canâ€™t and wonâ€™t live with prohibition. For good reason; constitutional infringements should be strictly watched and rarely allowed.
There is a whole lot more discussion in the long opinion. There is a dissent that raises interesting points. But if you want that information, read it yourself. Itâ€™s worth it, no matter which side you take on the gun rights debate. And if itâ€™s not worth it you, well, maybe think twice before hopping back into the debate.
The Second Amendment is the lightning rod of the day. No other amendment makes people as crazy or passionate. Arguments over it are increasingly vehement. But they are also the most nonsensical.
People yell and stomp over the pure feelings of this issue. They donâ€™t seek actual facts. If you want people to take you seriously and listen, you should know what you are talking about. Judge Traxler and Judge Agee of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals know what they are talking about. Thatâ€™s why you should listen to them.