Liberal Courts Still Gunning Against Second Amendment Rights - Forbes
Does the Second Amendment right to bear arms for self-defense extend outside the doorway of our homes? Well, no — at least not according to rulings of judges in California, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Virginia. Although 40 states currently mandate that permits shall be granted to allow all competent, law-abiding adults who seek them to carry concealed loaded firearms, California, Illinois and Maryland deny permits to all but those who can show they face specific dangers.
Moreover, an Oct. 4 ruling by the Federal U.S. Court of Appeals found the Washington, D.C., ban on even owning “assault weapons” and large-capacity magazines doesn’t violate constitutional rights of residents living in the nation’s capital. The 2-1 judge decision also upheld registration requirements for handguns put in place after a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2008 ended the city’s near total ban on firearms, and ordered a lower court to review other aspects of their gun control law, such as limits on multiple purchases as well.
Judge Douglas Ginsburg defended the ruling, writing, “The District has carried its burden of showing a substantial relationship between the prohibition of both semi-automatic rifles and magazines holding more than 10 rounds, and the objectives of protecting police officers and controlling crime.” Judge Brett Kavanaugh dissented, stating that he would have thrown out the ban on assault weapons and the registration requirements. He wrote: “This case concerns semi-automatic rifles. It would strain logic and common sense to conclude that the Second Amendment protects semi-automatic handguns but does not protect semi-automatic rifles.”