In a significant ruling on Monday, a deeply divided U.S. Supreme Court chose not to take up two pivotal gun rights cases, leaving the issue of the constitutionality of assault weapons bans unresolved for now. Despite the majority’s silence on their reasoning, the decision dismissing cases tied to high-capacity magazines and AR-15-style assault weapons elicited public dissent from three conservative justices. Moreover, a fourth shared his view, questioning the constitutionality of such bans.
Among these dissenting voices, Justice Clarence Thomas expressed his opinion strongly, suggesting that laws prohibiting popular firearms like the AR-15 might infringe upon the Second Amendment. Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch were inclined to review a challenge against Maryland’s specific legislation, while Justice Brett Kavanaugh, despite agreeing not to hear the case currently, voiced his expectation that the Supreme Court will tackle the issue within the coming years.
Maryland enacted its firearm restrictions in the wake of the tragic Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in 2012, where an AR-15 was used. Similar bans exist across several states, underpinned by support from congressional Democrats, advocating the safety benefit of these legislative measures. Challengers in the case advocated for constitutional rights, highlighting the legality of ownership for most firearm enthusiasts.
This judicial reluctance arrives on the heels of a landmark Supreme Court decision nearly three years prior that broadened Second Amendment rights. That ruling has galvanized subsequent legal challenges against various firearm restrictions nationwide. Presently, ten states and the District of Columbia have instituted laws akin to Maryland’s, impacting major urban centers including New York and Los Angeles. A federal prohibition on assault weapons expired over a decade ago, in 2004.
Gun control advocates, such as Everytown Law, lauded the Supreme Court’s stance, citing enhanced safety for communities. With data indicating a significant rise in mass shooting casualties involving assault weapons and high-capacity magazines between 2015 and 2022, they are staunchly committed to defending such statutes. Maryland’s legal team bolstered this perspective, arguing the restricted firearms—ones they equate to military-level arsenals—do not warrant constitutional protection.
Maryland’s law bans a range of firearms, like the AR-15, the AK-47, and the Barrett .50-caliber sniper rifle, along with a cap of 10-rounds for magazines. Despite the setback, the pro-gun Second Amendment Foundation is prepared to sustain its legal battles across seven pending cases, maintaining that these categorical bans disenfranchise millions from fully exercising their Second Amendment rights.
The Supreme Court similarly declined to challenge Rhode Island’s limitations on high-capacity magazines. The opposition from Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch echoed again, reflecting parallel laws that span over a dozen states. Notably, both Thomas and Kavanaugh have historically critiqued assault weapon prohibitions. In previous opinions, Kavanaugh decried a D.C. measure as unconstitutional, while Thomas lamented another missed opportunity to review a similar municipal ban.
Intriguingly, after a 2022 Supreme Court ruling that broadened gun rights and focused judicial assessment on historical gun ownership traditions rather than public safety, there’s been a proliferation of challenges against firearm laws. Such shifts have struck down numerous restrictions and left lower courts grappling with legal clarity.
In recent actions, while the high court invalidated a ban on bump stocks, it opted to uphold constraints prohibiting firearm possession by individuals under domestic-violence restraining orders and regulations concerning nearly untraceable ghost guns. Overall, as the legal landscape evolves, the conversation around gun rights and public safety remains fiercely contentious and poised for future courtroom deliberation.