On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to review two significant gun laws, which means Maryland’s regulations classifying certain firearms—specifically AR-15 semi-automatics—as “assault-style” weapons will stay in effect. Similarly, Rhode Island’s related laws remain in force, too.
That said, various legal challenges to similar laws are ongoing across the country. This might mean the topic could still resurface in court eventually.
Shortly after the announcement, Janet Carter, a senior advisor with the gun control group Everytown Law, voiced her approval of the court’s decision, noting that appellate courts have generally backed such laws, contributing to safer communities.
“Courts nationwide have consistently supported laws like these, enhancing public safety,” she remarked in a statement.
However, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), a group actively opposing Maryland’s law, expressed dissatisfaction with the court’s choice. The organization criticized certain justices for, in their view, failing to uphold the Constitution adequately.
“We, like millions of responsible gun owners, are frustrated that lower courts are left to interpret crucial second amendment rights. But we are determined to fight against these prohibitions across the nation,” they commented.
The FPC also called for the Trump administration to provide support for gun rights in future legal confrontations.
Recently, the Supreme Court has been cautious about entertaining new cases related to broader interpretations of gun rights. Still, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch signaled their disapproval of the Maryland decision, with Judge Thomas stating that the ban likely infringes on the second amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.
“It’s hard to see how Maryland’s ban on AR-15s can hold up under constitutional scrutiny,” Thomas wrote.
Judge Brett Kavanaugh didn’t formally dissent but indicated skepticism regarding the legality of such restrictions, suggesting that the court should explore the AR-15 matter soon.
“In my opinion, this court should consider addressing the AR-15 issue promptly,” Kavanaugh remarked.
Judges John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett sided with the more liberal justices in this scenario.
Maryland’s law defines certain firearms as “weapons of attack,” a term often used by advocates of gun control to vilify these weapons. This includes models resembling military-grade firearms like the M16 and AR-15.
The law was enacted in response to the tragic Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. It aims to curtail the use of such models in mass shooting events.
Originally, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals supported the law prior to a pivotal 2022 Supreme Court decision that expanded Second Amendment rights. Following that ruling, new plaintiffs sought to challenge Maryland’s law, asking the Supreme Court to compel the Court of Appeals to revisit the issue.
Nonetheless, the 4th Circuit upheld its initial stance in an August 2024 ruling.
In Rhode Island, the law was introduced right before the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision that prohibited ownership of magazines capable of holding over ten rounds.
Various lower courts, including the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, upheld the magazine restrictions challenged by plaintiffs, including gun owners and retailers from Big Bear Hunting and Fishing Supply.
Additionally, last July, the Supreme Court opted not to become involved in several gun-related legal matters soon after it supported a federal law that limits firearm ownership for individuals facing domestic violence restraining orders.
On March 26, the High Court also affirmed the Biden administration’s capability to regulate “ghost gun” kits, which consist of easily assembled firearm components. However, this ruling didn’t directly tackle the constitutional right to bear arms.
