Lawyers for the District of Columbia asked a federal district court on July 11 to put a challenge to the capital city’s ban on so-called assault weapons on hold temporarily.

They argued in newly filed papers in the case of Yzaguirre v. District of Columbia that the delay would save legal resources because an appeals court will soon rule in another related challenge.

Gun control supporters say the ban is a public-spirited safety measure.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is “poised” in the other case, Hanson v. District of Columbia, to resolve “legal questions about the scope of the Second Amendment and what showings a challenger to a weapons ban must make,” the lawyers wrote in a motion to stay the case.

“This is a classic scenario where the Court should issue a brief stay pending an authoritative decision coming any moment.”

The government lawyers were responding to a lawsuit that gun rights activist Tyler Yzaguirre filed in federal district court in Washington on June 25 against the city’s ban on weapons such as the AR-15 rifle.

Mr. Yzaguirre is president of the Second Amendment Institute, a non-profit group that is also a plaintiff in the case. A third plaintiff is G&D LLC, a federally licensed firearms dealer in Washington.

Before the local government’s motion was filed, he confirmed on July 10 that his legal team filed a motion in Yzaguirre v. District of Columbia to temporarily block the ban.

On July 9, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta directed the two sides to propose a schedule for briefing in the case by July 11.

The lawsuit alleges that the ban violates the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court’s rulings on it, including New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.

That 2022 ruling held that individuals have a constitutionally protected right to bear arms in public for self-defense.

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 how potentially dangerous it may be.

The phrase was created by “antigun publicists” campaigning against the legal ownership of firearms, Mr. Yzaguirre’s legal complaint states, quoting Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissent in Sternberg v. Carhart (2000).

The ban deprives Washington residents of “their fundamental, individual right to keep and bear commonly possessed arms” such as the AR-15, the legal complaint states.

Around 24.6 million Americans have owned an AR-15, the 2021 National Firearms Survey reported.

Mr. Yzaguirre said he owns an AR-15 rifle that he legally purchased while a Delaware resident. He tried to register the weapon with Washington police so he could keep it at his home in the city.

The police rejected the registration application citing the District of Columbia’s ban on “assault weapons,” he said.

Mr. Yzaguirre told The Epoch Times the legal action was filed because, “I want not only myself, but also the law-abiding citizens of the District to be able to defend themselves with commonly owned firearms protected by the Second Amendment—and blanket bans on firearms because they look scary is not a constitutional reason for banning them.”

He said he was disappointed that the Supreme Court declined on July 2 to take up a challenge to an Illinois law that prohibits what it defines as assault weapons.

He said he hoped there was “some miraculous way” his lawsuit could find its way to the Supreme Court before the Illinois ban eventually finds its way to the nation’s highest court.

The Epoch Times reached out for comment to District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb, but had not received a reply by publication time.

This article by Matthew Vadum appeared July 11, 2024, in The Epoch Times.