Courts Strike Down Gun Control Measures in Two States

This blog originally appeared at The New York Times.

The decisions in Maryland and Oregon emerge within a changing legal environment following a Supreme Court ruling that has imposed fresh constraints on gun regulation.

Following a pivotal U.S. Supreme Court decision last year that severely curtails government authority to impose gun restrictions, Democratic-led states have hurried to navigate around or challenge the ruling’s boundaries. Some states have implemented fresh gun regulations, with Oregon even passing a ballot measure to prohibit high-capacity ammunition magazines.

However, this week, advocates for these new gun measures faced setbacks, highlighting the extensive impact of the court’s decision.

On Tuesday, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Va., deemed a decade-old Maryland law concerning handgun licensing requirements unconstitutional.

Also, within the same timeframe, a state judge in southeastern Oregon determined that a ballot measure endorsed by voters in 2022, aiming to ban high-capacity magazines and mandate background checks and training for gun permits, violated the State Constitution.

The Gun Owners of America, a Virginia-based lobbying organization actively engaged in legal battles, deemed the dual rulings significant enough to warrant a news alert sent to its members, heralding “good news for gun rights supporters to celebrate this Thanksgiving!”

Erich Pratt, the group’s senior vice president, expressed his excitement in an email, describing the Oregon ruling as “thrilling” and considering the Maryland decision equally “encouraging.”

“Ultimately, an increasing number of Americans are recognizing the government’s limitations in ensuring their safety,” stated Mr. Pratt, referencing a recent NBC News poll indicating a surge in gun ownership to historic highs.

Legal experts approached the implications of the latest rulings cautiously, acknowledging other recent court decisions, like in Illinois, and ongoing arguments in a new gun case before the Supreme Court, indicating continued momentum for gun violence prevention laws.

However, they observed that this week’s rulings further underscored a clear pattern: judges, particularly those appointed by Republican presidents, interpreting the Second Amendment as expansively as feasible.

“There’s a current trend within the courts emphasizing a more earnest consideration of the right to keep and bear arms,” expressed Jacob D. Charles, a law professor at Pepperdine University specializing in gun regulations and court rulings. “Over the past year and a half, lower court decisions have notably broadened interpretations of the Second Amendment, striking down laws previously not deemed unconstitutional before the Bruen case.”

The reference to “Bruen” pertains to the Supreme Court case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which has swiftly become synonymous with the battle over gun control, akin to how “Dobbs” and “Roe” are shorthand in the abortion debate.

In the June 2022 ruling, the Supreme Court’s 6-to-3 decision drastically altered the standard for firearm restrictions. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, argued that gun laws should no longer be evaluated based on the conventional practice of balancing gun rights against public interest but instead by considering the Second Amendment’s text and the “historical tradition” of gun regulation.

Following this, lower courts have grappled with the challenge of scouring through obscure or long-forgotten regulations in endeavors to evaluate historical traditions. A federal judge in Indiana likened the process of assessing the constitutionality of gun laws to a “game of historical ‘Where’s Waldo?'”

Recently, the conservative majority of the Supreme Court, in oral arguments earlier this month for the case United States v. Rahimi, seemed inclined to explore constraining the scope of the Bruen case and potentially uphold a federal law that disarms domestic abusers.

The aftermath of Bruen has led to an upsurge in lawsuits contesting various gun laws, as reported by Giffords, a gun control group, with over 450 rulings attempting to interpret the case.

The litigated laws encompass a range of provisions.

In New York, a law was enacted to restrict carrying firearms in “sensitive locations” like Times Square, public transportation, sports arenas, and places of worship. This law has sparked confusion and resulted in numerous legal battles.

Following a mass shooting in Highland Park on July 4, 2022, Illinois imposed a ban on high-powered guns in January. This month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago upheld this ban.

Preliminary research suggests that judges appointed by Republicans are notably more inclined to strike down gun regulation laws after the Bruen case, noted Eric Ruben, one of the authors of the study and a law professor at Southern Methodist University.

This trend was evident this week with Maryland, as the federal appellate court split 2 to 1, with a nominee of former President Donald J. Trump penning the majority opinion.

In a statement, Randy Kozuch, the executive director of the Institute for Legislative Action at the National Rifle Association, emphasized the importance of protecting the fundamental right to self-defense for law-abiding Marylanders, following the Fourth Circuit court’s decision to overturn the state’s restrictive gun license law.

The situation in Oregon differed, as it involved the State Constitution rather than the Second Amendment. In rural Harney County, where nearly 85 percent of voters rejected a ballot initiative proposing new permit requirements and a ban on high-capacity magazines, Judge Robert S. Raschio stated that some concerns about gun ownership were misplaced.

Judge Raschio highlighted that while mass shootings have a significant impact on the national psyche, they actually occur infrequently and are sensationalized by the media, as indicated in his ruling.

Responding to the decision, Oregon’s attorney general, Ellen Rosenblum, a Democrat, pledged to file an appeal, expressing confidence in the state’s likelihood of success. The case might eventually be brought before a State Supreme Court comprising seven members, all appointed by a Democratic governor.

Eric Tirschwell, the executive director and chief litigation counsel of Everytown Law, likened the post-Bruen period to a back-and-forth scenario, expressing the need for clearer guidance from the Supreme Court.

He remarked, “It feels like a game of pingpong, where one day one side prevails, the next day the other does, and what we truly need is more definitive clarity from the Supreme Court.”

Tirschwell further noted, “While the last two decisions may seem unfortunate and misguided and likely to be overturned, if we take a broader view of the past 30 days or so, there have been some very encouraging indications for gun safety and related laws.”