Mercer Times

New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin, Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings, and Pennsylvania Attorney General Michelle Henry have made a strong case in defense of common sense gun safety laws in federal court. The attorneys for the states delivered oral arguments defending landmark firearms legislation in the case of Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association v. Delaware Department of Safety & Homeland Security before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Attorney General Jennings defended restrictions on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines against a challenge by plaintiffs affiliated with the National Rifle Association. She stated, “The idea that the Founders envisioned anything like an AR-15 when they drafted the Constitution is a delusion. These guns originated as weapons of war, were marketed based on their military pedigree, and have emerged as the clear weapon of choice for mass shooters at a time when guns are the leading cause of death for children in our country. The gun lobby’s continuing pursuit of blood money is appalling and flat-out wrong on the merits. We are proud to defend these laws.”

Attorney General Platkin, who previously led an effort supporting the Delaware statutes, expressed his support for gun safety laws by saying, “I stand united with the Attorneys General of every state in the Third Circuit, and with 18 States across the country, because this madness has to stop. There is no sane reason why ordinary citizens must arm themselves with the weapons of war – assault weapons and large capacity magazines – at issue in this case today. We urge the Third Circuit to affirm the District Court’s conclusion that these commonsense restrictions are constitutional and are consistent with the Second Amendment. If Delaware’s laws can be struck down, then the public safety of all other states, including New Jersey, will be at risk.”

Pennsylvania Attorney General Henry echoed the sentiments, stating, “Every tragic incident of gun violence across the country and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania means another family is left heartbroken and picking up the pieces from senseless violence. I stand proudly next to partners in Delaware and New Jersey as leaders in stating our case that the line has to be drawn between maintaining freedoms essential to Pennsylvanians and our obligations as chief law enforcer to protect children, families, and communities from further harm.”

The states argue that assault weapons and high-capacity magazines represent unprecedented societal concerns and dramatic technological changes from the firearms of the 18th and 19th centuries. They assert that Delaware’s statutes are well within the country’s tradition of reasonable firearm regulations and that large-capacity magazines do not meet the definition of “arms” in the Second Amendment.

The amicus brief for DSSA v. DDSHS was joined by the attorneys general of California, Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, showing widespread support for the defense of gun safety laws in this case.