## Facts

- Maryland enacted the Firearm Safety Act of 2013 (FSA) after prominent mass shootings.
- The FSA banned the sale, transfer, purchase, and receipt of specified semiautomatic rifles labeled “assault long guns” and their “copies.”
- The FSA also prohibited the sale, transfer, or receipt of detachable magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds (large-capacity magazines).
- Individual gun owners, firearms dealers, and gun-rights organizations challenged the FSA as violating the Second Amendment.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Maryland, applying intermediate scrutiny and finding the law substantially related to public safety and crime-prevention interests.
- A prior panel decision favoring strict scrutiny was vacated when the Fourth Circuit granted rehearing en banc.

## Issues

1. Whether the FSA’s bans regulate “arms” protected by the Second Amendment.
2. If the Second Amendment applies, what level of scrutiny governs and whether the FSA survives that review.

## Decision

- The en banc Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Maryland and upheld the FSA.
- The court held that the banned semiautomatic rifles and large-capacity magazines are not protected by the Second Amendment because they are “weapons of war” and “most useful in military service,” which may be banned under Heller.
- In the alternative, assuming the regulated arms are covered by the Second Amendment, the court held the FSA survives intermediate scrutiny.
- The court rejected strict scrutiny because the FSA left law-abiding citizens able to possess many other firearms for self-defense, including handguns and other long guns not classified as “assault weapons.”

## Legal Principles

- Second Amendment challenges may be analyzed under a two-step approach: (1) determine whether the conduct or arms fall within the Amendment’s scope; (2) if so, apply the appropriate scrutiny.
- Under Heller, weapons “most useful in military service” (e.g., “M-16 rifles and the like”) may be excluded from Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual.
- A categorical ban that does not severely burden the core right of armed self-defense in the home may be evaluated under intermediate scrutiny rather than strict scrutiny.
- Under intermediate scrutiny, the government must show the law is reasonably adapted to substantial interests such as public safety, reducing mass-shooting lethality, and protecting law enforcement; conclusive proof or scientific certainty is not required.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit upheld Maryland’s ban on designated semiautomatic rifles and magazines over ten rounds, concluding the regulated arms are outside Second Amendment protection as “weapons of war” or, alternatively, that the restrictions are reasonably adapted to substantial public-safety objectives under intermediate scrutiny.


Kolbe v. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114 (4th Cir. 2017) (en banc)