A federal judge on July 29 temporarily put on hold a challenge to the capital city’s ban on “assault weapons.”
Second Amendment advocates say the ban is unconstitutional; gun control supporters say it promotes public safety.
Gun rights activists say the expression “assault weapon” is arbitrary and is based on superficial considerations such as the way a weapon looks, as opposed to what it does.
The challenge is one of several to be introduced across the country in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. The court held that individuals have a constitutionally protected right to bear arms in public for self-defense and that gun restrictions must have a historical analogue to withstand challenge.
The lawsuit was brought by Washington resident Tyler Yzaguirre on June 25 against the city’s ban on weapons such as the AR-15 rifle. In Yzaguirre v. District of Columbia, he is asking the court to strike down the ban, arguing that it violates the Second Amendment.
Yzaguirre is president of the Second Amendment Institute, a nonprofit group that is also a plaintiff in the case. A third plaintiff is G&D LLC, a federally licensed firearms dealer in Washington.
U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington ruled on July 29 that the court should wait for a federal appeals court to decide a separate challenge to a District of Columbia gun law before proceeding.
“The court believes that a brief stay will benefit the parties and conserve judicial resources, without causing undue harm to [the] Plaintiffs,” Mehta wrote.
The other case “very well could be decided in the coming weeks,” he added.
But on July 11, lawyers for the District of Columbia asked Mehta to pause the lawsuit because the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is expected to rule soon in the Hanson case.
“This is a classic scenario where the Court should issue a brief stay pending an authoritative decision coming any moment,” they wrote at the time.
That case involves lead plaintiff Andrew Hanson, who filed a Second Amendment-based challenge to the District’s prohibition of large-capacity magazines that are capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras denied Hanson’s request to block the law on April 20, 2023, finding that the ammunition restriction was constitutional because the plaintiffs “have not shown likelihood of success on the merits.”
Hanson appealed to the D.C. Circuit, which heard arguments on Feb. 13 and could rule on the case at any time.
Yzaguirre said he filed his lawsuit after District of Columbia police rejected his application to register an AR-15 rifle that he legally purchased while a Delaware resident. He wanted to keep the rifle at his home in Washington.
He said the police rejected the application because of the District of Columbia’s ban on assault weapons.
Yzaguirre previously said, “Blanket bans on firearms because they look scary is not a constitutional reason for banning them.”
After Mehta’s new ruling, Yzaguirre said the decision disappointed him.
“The judge’s decision to stay our case is a delay of justice,” he told The Epoch Times.
“We filed this case to restore the Second Amendment rights of Washingtonians. Every day that we’re denied the right to arm ourselves with effective means of self-defense further empowers criminals.”
The Epoch Times asked District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb to comment but received no reply by the time of publication.
