by Conor Higgins | TGM correspondent
Douglas Gansler
On Nov. 12, 2014 twenty one states and a number of gun rights groups filed an amicus brief as part of Stephen Kolbe v. Martin O’Malley, an appeal filed to overturn the Maryland Gun Safety Act of 2013. Led by West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and attorney Elbert Lin, the brief argues that the law violates the Second Amendment, as well as the Heller decision, and a number of other pertinent Second Amendment cases. Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler had until the end of 2014 to respond, and on New Year’s Eve he did just that.
The “Brief of Defendants-Appellees” filed by AG Gansler seeks to address the concerns and arguments raised by Morrisey, and close the books on this law which has been held up as constitutional on a number of different occasions.
While Morrisey’s brief argued that the weapons banned by the law, such as the AR-15 and AK-47, were widely owned and used for self-defense, as recognized by Heller, Gansler did not see it that way.
In the summary of his submission on Appeal #:14-1945 (the case number), Gansler argues that the AR-15 and the AK-47 were designed for war, and cites the history of their conversion from battlefield, select-fire weapons, to the civilian semi-automatic weapons that we see widely owned throughout the country today. However some of his assertions could be seen as startling or alarming to gun rights advocates, as Gansler fundamentally rejects the idea that AR-15’s and AK-47’s are used at all for self-defense.
His brief is 74 pages long; however, the summary of Gansler’s argument for the State of Maryland, as well as the attitude of many gun-control advocates can be summed up in two sentences.
“The banned firearms are not commonly used for self-defense, and more than ten rounds are rarely, if ever, required for self-defense. Thus, the banned firearms and magazines do not fall within the scope of the Second Amendment’s protection.” (Pg. 24 of 74, under “Summary of Argument.” )
Gansler goes on to argue that “The plaintiffs have failed to identify a single incident in which an individual in Maryland has used an assault weapon in self-defense, and Maryland law enforcement officers were similarly unaware of any such incident.” (Pg. 36 of 74.)
This is the official position of the Attorney General of the State of Maryland, of course, before he stepped down for his successor Brian Frosh who was scheduled to assume office on Jan. 6.
Patrick Morrissey
However, this position is not surprising coming from a Maryland official. The state has a long history of dictating to citizens what their needs are concerning their right to keep and bear firearms. Being a “may-issue” state, Marylanders have to first prove to the chief law enforcement officer in their particular county that they have a real need for a concealed carry permit before one is issued.
Gansler’s ignorance towards the use of AR-15s as self-defense tools is also troubling. While he and his law enforcement officers may not be aware of any instances of using an AR-15 to thwart a crime in Maryland, it certainly happens in other states. In May of 2014 a North Carolina man fought off a pistol wielding intruder with an AR-15. In March of 2013 a Rochester, NY, man fought off two home invaders with an AR-15. In 2010, a 15-year-old boy in Texas stopped a home invasion and saved the life of his 12-year-old sister using an AR-15.
While Gansler may not be aware of any events such as those in Maryland, they certainly do happen.
This response to the amicus filed by Morrisey and the other states’ attrorneys general is much of the same back and forth rhetoric those who follow the politics of firearms are all too familiar with. The gun rights side argues that these are weapons used in self-defense, they mention Heller, and that the Second Amendment rights of Americans are being violated. Gun control advocates unsurprisingly respond with equally unoriginal rhetoric with the assertion that AR-15s are military grade weapons, they are not used in self-defense, and the Second Amendment is in no way violated.
However, it is what this argument represents that is important, and should be important, to anyone paying attention to the gun argument in this country. For the first time we see a number of states, 21, joining with private groups and citizens to address the issue of gun rights. What we also see, is the Maryland state government establishing a position in open court that they have a right to dictate to their citizens what is right and proper to use in terms of self-defense, regarding both what kind of weapon and how much ammunition should be used.
To clarify, according to the State of Maryland, using more than ten rounds in a self-defense situation is simply unnecessary. Using an AR-15 or AK-47 for self-defense simply does not happen. Regrettably, this is the logic which prevails among the gun-control advocates in this country, who are either ignorant of the truth, or dismissive of the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms in their homes. Unfortunately it would seem that Maryland lawmakers adhere strongly to these two tenants.
