>  tpdf/24/24-203/326619/2024092313583 1605_24-203 amicus brief.pdf the fourth circuit held that the rifles banned by maryland are not suitable for self-defense. the court reached this conclusion based on its assessment of the relative merits of the ar-15 as a self-defense weapon compared to the public safety implications of the use of the weapon. this was clear error because the lowercourts suitability analysis amounts to stealth interest balancing, and interest balancing was forbidden in new york state rifle & pistol assn, inc. v. bruen, 597 u.s. 1 (2022). the fourth circuit held the ar-15 and similar weapons are not protected by the second amendment in part because they are not suitable for self-defense by civilians against criminal attack. the court assumed that the second amendment protects only the right to defend against private violence, such as attacks by criminals. this was error because in d.c. v. heller, 554 u.s. 570 (2008), the court held that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right protecting against both public and private violence. the court recently reemphasized the dual nature of the right in united states v. rahimi, 144 s. ct. 1889 (2024).
United States