Del. Introduces Assault Weapons Ban, Drawing on Md. Law That Survived Challenge
Democrats in the Delaware General Assembly last week unveiled controversial legislation to ban the sale of assault-style weapons, after a similar measure in Maryland withstood a constitutional challenge from gun-rights advocates in 2017.
March 26, 2018 at 06:23 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Delaware Law Weekly
Democrats in the Delaware General Assembly last week unveiled controversial legislation to ban the sale of assault-style weapons, after a similar measure in Maryland withstood a constitutional challenge from gun-rights advocates in 2017.
As Delaware Law Weekly reported earlier this month, the bill mirrors the Firearm Safety Act of 2013, which cleared the Maryland legislature in the wake of the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. Like the Maryland law, the Delaware bill identifies a range of “assault long guns” and other weapons that would no longer be approved for manufacture, sale and transport in the First State.
The synopsis of SB 163, introduced in the state Senate March 22, cites a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which declared that Maryland's law, known as the FSA, did not violate the constitutional right to bear arms.
In that case, a majority of the federal appeals court relied on U.S. Supreme Court precedent in District of Columbia v. Heller to rule that the Second Amendment did not apply to guns deemed to be “exceptionally lethal weapons of war. The Supreme Court in November denied an appeal by gun dealers and the Maryland branch of the National Rifle Association, who had challenged the FSA in the lower courts.
The Delaware legislation, introduced by Sen. Bryan Townsend, D-Newark, came at the urging of Gov. John Carney, who last month called for a ban on “assault-style” weapons, after a 19-year-old man used a legally purchased AR-15 to kill 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.
“This is important legislation that will make our state safer—and I urge members of the General Assembly in both parties to act quickly and send this bill to my desk as soon as possible,” Carney said last week in a statement.
The bill lists 45 types of long guns—including the AR-15 and AK-47—that would be outlawed, along with certain assault pistols and “copycat” weapons. The measure would not include firearms that were legally purchased before the legislation goes into effect, though those guns would be subject to tighter restrictions after the bill's effective date.
“Military-style assault weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment. They have limited or no practical use for hunting or home defense, yet they are the weapon of choice in mass shootings and pose additional risk to law enforcement,” Townsend, the bill's chief sponsor in the Senate, said in a statement.
“It's irresponsible to make them available to the general public on-demand. We owe it to our students, our families, and our law enforcement to keep weapons of war where they belong: on the battlefield, not on store shelves.”
However, the bill is expected to face fierce pushback from Republicans in the chamber, where Democrats hold just a one-seat majority. To complicate issues, gun-control measures don't always split evenly along party lines, and Democrats could see some defections from Kent County lawmakers, who represent constituencies that are more likely to oppose gun reform.
Meanwhile, the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action is already urging members to lobby their state representatives to vote against what it called a “radical gun ban” that would infringe the rights of Delaware citizens.
“As drafted, this legislation would do nothing to stop crime and would only prevent law-abiding gun owners from being able to defend themselves using the most effective means available,” the organization said last week. “Criminals, by definition, do not follow the law and will not follow this one if passed.”
The bill has been assigned to the Senate Judicial & Community Affairs Committee, where it could be heard as early as Wednesday.
However, the panel is facing a condensed schedule after a pair of late-season snow storms forced the General Assembly to cancel its legislative business in recent weeks, and the bill may not receive an initial vote until late April.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSoft-Spoken But No-Nonsense: Retired Del. Supreme Court Justice Vaughn Dead at 75
3 minute readThe Del. Supreme Court Could Make the Next Big Move in Anticompetitive Agreements. Here's How.
4 minute readSkadden Partners: String of Securities Wins Highlights Cross-Border Practice
3 minute readCorporate Bankruptcies Slow Down in Q3 as Weil, Davis Polk and Sidley Earn Major Retentions
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2GlaxoSmithKline Settles Most Zantac Lawsuits for $2.2B
- 3BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 4Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 5Inside Track: Late-Career In-House Leaders Offer Words to Live by
Who Got The Work
Eleanor M. Lackman of Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp has entered an appearance for Canon, the Japanese camera maker, and the Brooklyn Nets in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Sept. 16 in California Central District Court by T-Rex Law on behalf of technology company Phinge Corporation, pursues claims against the defendants for their ongoing use of the 'Netaverse' mark. The suit contends that the defendants' use of the mark in connection with a virtual reality platform will likely create consumer confusion. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall, is 2:24-cv-07917, Phinge Corporation v. Yankees Entertainment and Sports Network, LLC et al.
Who Got The Work
Fox Rothschild partner Glenn S. Grindlinger has entered an appearance for Garage Management Company in a pending lawsuit over alleged wage-and-hour violations. The case was filed Aug. 31 in New York Southern District Court by the Abdul Hassan Law Group on behalf of a manual worker who contends that he was not properly compensated for overtime hours worked. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres, is 1:24-cv-06610, Bailey v. Garage Management Company LLC.
Who Got The Work
Veronica M. Keithley of Stoel Rives has entered an appearance for Husky Terminal and Stevedoring LLC in a pending environmental lawsuit. The suit, filed Aug. 12 in Washington Western District Court by Kampmeier & Knutsen on behalf of Communities for a Healthy Bay, seeks to declare that the defendant has violated the Clean Water Act by releasing stormwater discharges on Puget Sound and Commencement Bay. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Benjamin H. Settle, is 3:24-cv-05662, Communities for a Healthy Bay v. Husky Terminal and Stevedoring LLC.
Who Got The Work
Caroline Pignatelli of Cooley has entered an appearance for law firm Cooley, partner Matt Hallinan, retired partner Michael Tu and a pair of Cooley associates in a pending fraud lawsuit related to the firm's representation of startup company Carbon IQ and founder Benjamin Cantey. The case, filed Sept. 26 in New Jersey District Court by the DalCortivo Law Offices on behalf of Gould Ventures and member Jason Gould, contends that the defendants deliberately or recklessly concealed critical information from the plaintiffs regarding fraud allegations against Cantey. Gould claims that he would not have accepted a position on Carbon IQ's board of directors or made a 2022 investment in the company if the fraud allegations had been disclosed. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Robert Kirsch, is 3:24-cv-09485, Gould Ventures, LLC et al v. Cooley, LLP et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom have stepped in to represent PDD Holdings, the operator of online marketplaces Pinduoduo and Temu, in a pending securities class action. The case, filed Sept. 30 in New York Eastern District Court by Labaton Keller Sucharow and VanOverbeke, Michaud & Timmony, contends that the defendants concealed information that rendered the growth of PDD unsustainable and posed substantial risks to PDD’s business, including merchant policies that made it unprofitable for vendors to do business on PDD platforms; malware issues on PDD applications; and PDD’s failure to implement effective compliance systems. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-06881, Macomb County Retiree Health Care Fund v. Pdd Holdings Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250