Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right: The Fourth Circuit Sidesteps Supreme Court Precedent in Upholding an Assault Weapon Ban in Bianchi v. Brown

This note examines the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Bianchi v. Brown and its application of the Supreme Court’s text, history, and tradition framework for evaluating Second Amendment challenges. The note argues that although the Fourth Circuit improperly incorporated interest-balancing and legislative deference into its analysis, it nevertheless reached the correct result in upholding Maryland’s assault weapon ban. After reviewing the history of assault weapon regulation and tracing the Supreme Court’s modern Second Amendment jurisprudence from District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago through New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen and United States v. Rahimi, the author explores the difficulties lower courts face in applying a history-centered methodology to modern firearms and contemporary public-safety concerns. The note highlights the uncertainty surrounding the scope of permissible historical analogues, the appropriate level of generality for comparison, and the growing role of judicial discretion in Second Amendment cases.The note contends that Bianchi illustrates both the strengths and weaknesses of the post-Bruen framework. While the Fourth Circuit’s reliance on modern policy concerns and legislative judgments conflicts with the Supreme Court’s rejection of interest-balancing, the court correctly identified a historical tradition of regulating exceptionally dangerous weapons and found sufficiently analogous regulations to support Maryland’s law under the broader approach endorsed in Rahimi. The author concludes that the current text, history, and tradition test remains vague, difficult to administer, and susceptible to inconsistent results. To provide greater clarity and promote coherent constitutional adjudication, the note argues that the Supreme Court should refine its methodology by permitting a more structured consideration of legislative purposes and contemporary public-safety concerns when evaluating firearm regulations.[This abstract was written by Microsoft Copilot, a generative artificial intelligence.]