Today, the Justice Department sued the District of Columbia’s Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), alleging that the District government and MPD unconstitutionally ban the AR-15 and many other firearms protected under the Second Amendment. The District’s gun laws require anyone seeking to own a gun to register it with D.C. Metro Police. However, the D.C. Code provides a broad registration ban on numerous firearms — an unconstitutional incursion into the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens seeking to own protected firearms for lawful purposes. MPD’s current pattern and practice of refusing to register protected firearms is forcing residents to sue to protect their rights and to risk facing wrongful arrest for lawfully possessing protected firearms. …
If only the 3rd circuit would hurry up with the en banc ruling, then we can be used a legal precedent.
Nice:
In support of the claim of constitutional protection, it ironically cites one of the most liberal Supreme Court Justices. Justice Kagan wrote in the recently litigated Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos case in support of America’s most popular rifle:
“Finally, Mexico’s allegations about the manufacturers’ “design and marketing decisions” add nothing of consequence. As noted above, Mexico here focuses on the manufacturers’ production of “military style” “assault weapons,” among which it includes AR-15 rifles [and] AK-47 rifles. But those products are both widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers. (The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the country. See T. Gross, How the AR-15 Became the Bestselling Rifle in the U.S., NPR (Apr. 20, 2023.)). The manufacturers cannot be charged with assisting in criminal acts just because Mexican cartel members like those guns too.”