Two prominent Second Amendment advocacy groups are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review Maryland's Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 following a recent decision by a lower court to uphold the controversial law.

The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) argue that the ban is unconstitutional and significantly restricts firearms protected under the Second Amendment, though the Biden-Harris administration stands in disagreement with that take, as Fox News reports.

Both advocacy organizations have petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case, known as Snope v. Brown, which comes on the heels of a 10-5 ruling by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals earlier this month.

The case, also referred to as Bianchi v. Frosh, was initially filed by residents of Baltimore County and Anne Arundel County in 2021, challenging the state’s restrictions on certain semi-automatic rifles and pistols.

Fourth Circuit Upholds Maryland's 2013 Ban

The Fourth Circuit’s majority opinion, authored by Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, concluded that Maryland's firearm ban is constitutional, aligning with the state’s right to regulate firearms.

Wilkinson emphasized that the ban on specific semi-automatic firearms, such as the AR-15 and Barrett .50 caliber, fits within the nation’s historical tradition of regulating dangerous weapons. The ruling cited several mass shootings as context for the necessity of such regulations.

However, this decision has not been without controversy. Judge Julius Richardson, in a dissenting opinion, strongly disagreed with the majority, arguing that the Second Amendment should not be regarded as a "second-class right."

Richardson’s dissent reflects the ongoing national debate about the extent to which the Second Amendment protects individual firearm ownership.

Legal Experts Question Fourth Circuit's Decision

The petition to the Supreme Court marks the third time that FPC and SAF have sought to challenge Maryland’s assault weapons ban.

SAF founder Alan Gottlieb expressed concern over the direction of the lower court’s rulings, stating that the Fourth Circuit's decision attempts to overturn the landmark "Heller" decision, which struck down Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban in 2008. Gottlieb warned that the lower court’s interpretation could reduce the Second Amendment to a "government-regulated privilege."

Brandon Combs, president of the Firearms Policy Coalition, also voiced strong opposition to the Fourth Circuit’s ruling.

He described the case as an "ideal vehicle" for the Supreme Court to address critical issues regarding Second Amendment rights, particularly in light of the widespread ownership of firearms like the AR-15 across the United States. According to Combs, the Fourth Circuit's conclusion that these widely owned semi-automatic rifles are not protected by the Second Amendment lacks a legitimate basis.

Maryland's Attorney General Defends Ban

Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown, who is the named defendant in the suit, has defended the state's position. Brown, a Democrat, inherited the case from his predecessor, Brian Frosh, and has continued to support the state’s ban on specific firearms. The Attorney General's office has maintained that the ban is a necessary measure to protect public safety, citing the unique danger posed by the firearms in question.

As the legal battle progresses, the plaintiffs, supported by FPC and SAF, hope the Supreme Court will intervene and overturn the Fourth Circuit’s ruling. They argue that the Supreme Court needs to clarify which types of firearms are covered under the Second Amendment, as the current lack of guidance has led to inconsistent rulings in lower courts.

Public Figures Remain Silent

Despite the high stakes of the case, some key public figures in Maryland have remained silent.

Fox News Digital reached out to Democrats Rep. Jamie Raskin and Gov. Wes Moore for comments on the lawsuit and the broader implications of the firearm ban. However, Moore had not responded by the time of publication.

Future Implications for Gun Control Laws

The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for gun control laws across the country. If the Supreme Court decides to hear the case and rules in favor of the plaintiffs, it could set a precedent that limits the ability of states to enact similar bans on firearms. This decision could also clarify the scope of the Second Amendment, potentially impacting future gun legislation at both the state and federal levels.

In conclusion, the ongoing legal challenge to Maryland’s Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 has sparked a significant debate over the limits of the Second Amendment and the power of states to regulate firearms. As the Firearms Policy Coalition and the Second Amendment Foundation await a decision from the Supreme Court, the case continues to draw attention from both legal experts and the general public, highlighting the complex and contentious nature of gun control in America.