While the Supreme Court declined to hear cases challenging bans on so-called “assault weapons” and standard-capacity magazines, Justice Brett Kavanaugh stated “this Court should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon, in the next term or two,” and even cited two NAGR cases moving through the lower courts.
The cases involved Maryland’s ban on semi-automatic rifles and Rhode Island’s restrictions on standard-capacity magazines. In both cases, three justices — Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas — indicated they would have granted review, falling one vote short of the four needed for the Court to hear the cases.
In Snope v. Brown, the Maryland case, challengers argued that the state’s ban on semi-automatic rifles violates the Second Amendment, emphasizing that rifles like the AR-15 are widely owned and constitute about 20% of U.S. firearm sales.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit upheld the ban, reasoning that such so-called “military-style” weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment, as they are designed for combat and not self-defense.
Maryland defended the law, citing its passage after the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting and referencing District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), which suggested “military-style” weapons could be banned.
The Rhode Island case involved a challenge to restrictions on standard-capacity magazines, with similar arguments about Second Amendment protections. The Court’s decision not to hear these cases leaves the lower court rulings in place, upholding both states’ laws.
Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented, with Thomas arguing that the question of banning popular rifles like the AR-15 is critical for millions of owners and merits review.
The Court’s ruling follows its 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which established that gun restrictions must align with historical U.S. traditions of firearm regulation. This has led to ongoing debates and legal challenges, with lower courts grappling with the Bruen framework.
The Court has recently addressed other gun cases, upholding a federal ban on guns for those under domestic-violence restraining orders and regulations on homemade firearms, but struck down a bump stock ban.
The National Association for Gun Rights expressed disappointment. Hannah Hill, Vice President of the legal arm of NAGR, took to X to say:
“‘Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered.‘ But we are not summer soldiers and sunshine patriots. And we are going to press on. We’ve said from day one that we will be banging on the door of the Supreme Court until they take this issue and strike down gun/mag bans nationwide, and that is what we’re going to do.”
The Court’s reluctance to take these cases may reflect its preference to let lower courts further interpret Bruen before intervening, though the relisting of these cases suggests potential future review.
Read more at SCOTUSblog.
