On Monday, the US Supreme Court refused to hear the law of state restrictions in the assault rifles and ammunition magazines with a large capacity and passed on cases that offered the judges a chance to further expand the rights to weapons.
The judges averted two appeals after the lower courts confirmed the ban in Maryland on the mighty semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15 and one on the island of Rhode Island, limiting the holding of ammunition feeding, which holds more than 10 laps. Lower courts have rejected the arguments that the measures violate the right of the other amendment to the US Constitution to “maintain and carry weapons”.
In the nation bitterly divided into how to solve the violence of firearms, including numerous bulk shots, the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, often captured a large view of the second addition.
The court expanded the rights to arms in orientation decisions in 2008, 2010, and in the case of 2022, which made it difficult to defend the restrictions of weapons according to the second amendment, which required to be “in accordance with the historical tradition of firearms regulation in the country”.
The calls have now claimed before the Supreme Court that states and courts arouse precedents that clarify that the second addition protects the weapons that are in “normal use”.
In 2013, Maryland adopted its ban on “offensive weapons” of military style, such as the semi-automatic AR-15 and AK-47 after the shooter used such a firearm in mass killing 20 children in 2012 in Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown in Connecticut. The law carries up to three years in prison.
Maryland residents trying to buy one of the forbidden weapons, as well as three organizations for weapons rights, including the political coalition of firearms, the defendant in 2020 and claims that the ban violates the second amendment.
Richmond in Virginia 4. The US Court of Appeal rejected this call in 2024 because he said that offensive weapons “are military weapons intended for permanent combat operations that are inappropriate and disproportionate to the need for self -defense”. “Excessive” firearms as such are not protected by the second addition, decided by 4.
The fourth circuit said that he refused to “control the constitution to say that the arms of the military style, which became the primary instruments of mass killing and terrorist attacks in the United States, are beyond the reach of the democratic processes of our nation”.
The petitioners told the Supreme Court that the term “offensive weapon” is a political term that is designed to use public confusion about machine guns and semi -automatic firearms. Forbidden weapons, said, “the same as any other semi -automatic firearm – weapons that are extremely common and fully protected by a second addition”.
The law on Rhode Iceland, which passed in 2022 in response to bulk shooting, prohibits most of the “extensive feed”, such as a magazine or drum that can accommodate more than 10 laps of ammunition.
The state calls “a slight restriction of particularly dangerous weapons accessories” and that in situations of mass shooting “every pause in fire, such as a pause for switching magazines, allows rare seconds to escape or take defense events”. The law applied retrospectively, which means that the inhabitants had to give up or change any forbidden magazine they owned and bears a sentence of up to five years in prison.
Four arms owners and a registered firearm dealer sued and claimed that the ban violated their rights of the other amendment and that they had to fall through the magazines they owned, violated the ban on the government to accept the assets without compensation.
In 2024, the established US Court of Appeal, based in Boston, rejected the claims and refused to block the law and noted that weapons were deployed in bulk shooting for some reason: “The semi -automatic firearms equipped (small capacity magazines) are highly effective weapons of mass killing.”
The capacity of the magazine “directly corresponds to the flyite”, said the first district.
The petitioners on the island of Rhode Island told the Supreme Court that instead of adhering to the Supreme Court’s decision 2022, the State law can only be “understood as a protest legislation that imposes more restrictive prohibitions on long common weapons”.
Also read | Shooting in Virginia, California and North Carolina will leave 3 dead, more than 15 injured
In recent years, the Supreme Court has been buffetted with challenges of weapons restrictions. This is due to the rule by the end of June on the Legality of Regulation 2022 issued by democratic former President Joe Biden’s administration forbidding “spiritual weapons”, mostly non -following firearms, whose use has been expanded in crimes at national level. The judges signaled the approval of this prohibition during the arguments in the case of October.
In June 2024, the court confirmed the Federal Law that makes it a crime for people under domestic violence who limit orders to have weapons. They also struck the federal ban of the “Bump Stock” device that allow semi -automatic weapons to shoot quickly as machine guns, although this case was not concentrated on the second addition.
Also read | Boulder Attack: Sushorts used a temporary flamethrower in Colorado | Watch video (tagstotranslate) US Supreme Court
