Delaware’s bans on assault weapons, large capacity mags remain in effect 

A federal judge hearing a right-wing challenge against two common-sense gun safety measures in Delaware has ruled against the gun lobby on a critical question in Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association, Inc. et al. v. Delaware Department of Safety and Homeland Security et al. 

In an opinion issued Monday evening, Judge Richard G. Andrews of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware denied a preliminary injunction sought by the Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association, the NRA’s Delaware affiliate, against the State’s common-sense bans on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. Assault weapons have become the leading weapon of choice in major mass shootings — including this week’s attack in Nashville — and large capacity magazines have been used in a majority of mass shootings where magazine types could be identified.

“This week’s heartbreaking massacre in Nashville, including the murder of three children, underscores what’s at stake here,” said Attorney General Jennings. “The list of mass shooters using AR-15s and similar weapons to murder innocents, including children, continues to grow. Gun violence has now surpassed car accidents as the leading cause of death for children in this country. And yet the gun lobby fights harder by the day to protect profits over people. No reasonable mind believes that this is what the Founders intended. I’m grateful to the Court for its ruling and its thoughtful analysis of the facts, and to our litigation team for their tireless, excellent work. We will continue to argue for common sense, and the safety of our kids, for as long as it takes.”

Judge Andrews found that the gun lobby “failed to meet their burden of establishing […] (1) likelihood of success on the merits and (2) irreparable harm,” noting that Delaware gun owners “retain ample effective alternatives” to assault weapons and large capacity magazines for self-defense. The Court also found that historical analysis supports ongoing enactment of the bans, noting that assault weapons and large capacity magazines “implicate technological change and unprecedented societal concerns for public safety”:

Defendants argue that the instant regulations implicate “unprecedented societal concerns” and “dramatic technological changes.” […] I agree. First, Defendants show that assault long guns and LCMs represent recent advances in technology. Defendants offer evidence that semi-automatic weapons “did not become feasible and available until the beginning of the twentieth century, and the primary market was the military.” […] Although multi-shot or repeating firearms existed in America during the colonial and founding eras, they “were rare and viewed as curiosities.” […] Neither were repeating rifles popular during the Civil War and Reconstruction; during these periods, they were used sparingly as military weapons and were available for civilian acquisition in limited numbers. […] It was only after World War I when semi-automatic and fully automatic long guns “began to circulate appreciably in society.” […] Plaintiffs do not rebut Defendants’ evidence with any comparable historical evidence of their own.

The Court’s opinion also notes the State’s successful citation of multiple examples of analogous firearm regulation, from the nation’s early history to the modern era.

Under the Court’s opinion, Delaware’s assault weapons ban and large capacity magazine ban will remain in effect during the pendency of the case-in-chief.  This matter is being led for the DOJ by Deputy Attorneys General Kenny Wan and Caneel Radinson-Blasucci, with support from Paralegals Jennifer Mitchell and Karen Truitt.

Print