Supreme Court Declines to Review Maryland Assault Weapons Ban, Upholding Lower Court Ruling
Gun owners and constitutionalists were dealt a significant blow Monday as the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to Maryland’s ban on semiautomatic rifles, effectively allowing the law to stand.
The decision, delivered without comment, sidesteps a mounting legal showdown over whether weapons like the AR-15 are protected under the Second Amendment.
The Supreme Court’s rejection leaves in place a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, which upheld Maryland’s law banning over 40 specific types of firearms, including “copycat weapons.”
First enacted after the 2012 Sandy Hook tragedy, the law makes it illegal to possess, sell or transfer what the state labels “assault long guns,” Trending Politics reports.
Three of the Court’s conservative justices—Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch—disagreed with the decision to turn away the case.
Justice Thomas issued a strong solo dissent, criticizing lower courts for “distorting” the Court’s past rulings on gun rights and calling the issue “ripe” for review.
“Until we are vigilant in enforcing it, the right to bear arms will remain ‘a second-class right,’” he warned.
The decision also came alongside a refusal to hear a separate challenge to Rhode Island’s ban on large-capacity magazines, further frustrating Second Amendment advocates.
Both rejections have left many conservatives questioning the Court’s commitment to the constitutional right to bear arms.
While the Court remained silent on its reasons for passing on the Maryland case, Justice Brett Kavanaugh issued a statement noting that similar legal battles are currently making their way through the federal appellate courts.
He signaled that the justices are likely to revisit the issue “in the next term or two,” once lower courts further clarify their interpretations.
The 4th Circuit had previously determined that weapons like the AR-15 fall outside the scope of Second Amendment protections, arguing they are “most useful in military service.”
That position conflicts with a 2022 Supreme Court ruling, which established that gun laws must align with the nation’s “historical tradition” of firearms regulation.
Under the 2022 standard, the federal government and states must demonstrate that any firearms restriction is consistent with how gun rights were understood at the time the Constitution was ratified.
Since that decision, many lower courts have struggled to interpret the new framework, often reaching conflicting conclusions on similar cases, according to TP.
Plaintiffs in the Maryland case included several residents who wished to legally purchase banned rifles, as well as a licensed firearms dealer and gun rights organizations.
They contended that commonly owned rifles like the AR-15 are in “common use” and therefore constitutionally protected.
The appeals court ruled against them, asserting the state’s restrictions were lawful.
Justice Kavanaugh appeared to agree with the challengers’ broader argument.
“Given that millions of Americans own AR-15s and that a significant majority of the states allow possession of those rifles,” he wrote, “petitioners have a strong argument that AR-15s are in ‘common use’ by law-abiding citizens and therefore are protected by the Second Amendment.”
The Supreme Court had declined to hear a similar challenge to Maryland’s law in 2023, citing the absence of a ruling from the 4th Circuit at the time.
With the appellate decision now rendered and left standing, the law remains enforceable, for the time being.
Continue Scrolling for the Comments
Leave a Comment