Supreme Court Declines to Hear Challenge on Semi-Automatic Rifle Bans—For Now
In a closely split decision Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a major Second Amendment challenge to laws banning semi-automatic rifles in Maryland, California, and eight other states typically governed by Democrats. This marks yet another chapter in the ongoing debate over gun rights and public safety in America, especially when it comes to so-called “assault weapons.”
What’s the Case About?
At the heart of the dispute is the legality of bans on popular semi-automatic rifles—most notably the AR-15—that millions of Americans own. Gun rights advocates argue these firearms fall under the Second Amendment’s protection because they are "in common use by law-abiding citizens." The argument hinges on whether the constitutional right to bear arms extends to modern semi-automatic rifles that resemble military weapons but are used by everyday people.
Despite intense arguments, the Supreme Court justices fell just one vote short of agreeing to hear the case and potentially reshape the future of gun laws nationwide.
The Court’s Divide
The decision was split. Three conservative justices—Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch—voted in favor of taking up the case. But the crucial fourth vote was withheld by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who has been known as a conservative but took a more cautious stance this time. He called the lower court ruling upholding Maryland’s ban "questionable," yet agreed with the majority to deny the appeal for now.
Here’s the kicker from Kavanaugh: "In my view, this court should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon, in the next Term or two." So while the issue wasn’t decided this round, the door remains wide open for future Supreme Court review.
What Does This Mean for State Gun Laws?
The refusal to hear the case lets stand existing laws in Maryland, Rhode Island, California, and other states that restrict assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. California, notably, was the first state in the nation to ban assault weapons back in 1989, and since then, several other states have passed similar laws—Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Washington among them.
If Maryland’s ban were ruled unconstitutional, all these laws across states would likely crumble like a house of cards. But for now, they remain firmly in place.
Why Are These Bans Controversial?
Lawmakers in these Democratic-led states argue that semi-automatic weapons are particularly dangerous and unnecessary for self-defense. Maryland officials specifically point out that their ban targets “certain highly dangerous, military-style assault weapons” frequently used in high-profile mass shootings.
To put it bluntly: these rifles are designed for rapid fire and sustained combat, making them ill-suited for civilian self-defense needs, according to the states. They are the weapons often involved in some of the deadliest mass shootings in recent American history.
The Bigger Picture: The Second Amendment and Gun Rights
This case touches on one of the most contentious issues in U.S. law — the reach and limits of the Second Amendment’s "right to keep and bear arms." For over a decade, the Supreme Court has largely dodged the issue when it comes to assault weapons. Since the landmark 2008 decision recognizing an individual’s right to bear arms for self-defense, rulings have focused on handguns and concealed carry permits rather than semi-automatic rifles.
Here’s what the court has done:
-
Struck down city laws in Washington, D.C. and Chicago that completely banned handguns.
-
Ruled that states cannot arbitrarily deny law-abiding citizens permits to carry concealed weapons.
But when it comes to assault rifles like the AR-15, the court has been hesitant to weigh in decisively.
Public Opinion and Political Pressure
Polling consistently shows a divided American public: most people oppose a blanket ban on handgun ownership but favor restrictions on semi-automatic assault rifles. This divide mirrors the political split—Democratic-led states pushing for bans, Republican-led states generally opposing them.
How Did We Get Here? The Maryland Law’s Origin
Maryland’s assault weapons ban was passed in the wake of the tragic 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, where 20 children and six staff members were killed. The emotional impact of that massacre and similar tragedies has driven many states to enact tighter gun control laws.
A conservative federal appeals court judge, J. Harvie Wilkinson, upheld Maryland’s ban last year. Interestingly, Judge Wilkinson is a Reagan appointee and was even a finalist for the Supreme Court nomination in 2005. His ruling was a clear message that military-style rifles designed for combat are not covered by the Second Amendment’s protections.
He wrote: "We decline to wield the Constitution to declare that military-style armaments which have become primary instruments of mass killing and terrorist attacks in the United States are beyond the reach of our nation’s democratic processes."
What About the Dissent?
The dissenting judges argued passionately that the Second Amendment protects weapons that are in common use by civilians—including the AR-15. One dissenting judge, Julius Richardson (appointed by Trump), emphasized just how widespread these rifles are.
Here’s a striking fact he shared: As of 2021, there are at least 28 million AR-style semi-automatic rifles in circulation across the U.S. That’s more AR-15s owned by civilians than there are Ford F-Series pickup trucks on the road—the most popular truck in America.
Richardson’s point was that because these rifles are so widely owned and popular, they fall under the constitutional right to bear arms.
A Look Back at Gun Law History
Three years ago, Justice Thomas wrote an opinion emphasizing that the Second Amendment should be interpreted based on the nation's historical traditions regarding gun regulations.
However, the Maryland case revealed a sharp divide over what that history really means. Gun rights advocates argued that there was no historical precedent for banning common firearms, so modern bans lack constitutional footing.
On the flip side, some judges and state lawyers highlighted historical laws that imposed new restrictions in response to emerging dangers—from stored gunpowder to dynamite and early machine guns. This suggests that lawmakers have always responded to new weapon threats with regulation, supporting today’s laws against rapid-fire assault weapons.
What’s Next?
The Supreme Court’s refusal to take up the case now doesn’t close the book on the AR-15 issue. Justice Kavanaugh’s comments hint strongly that the court will revisit this explosive topic soon, likely within the next couple of terms.
The stakes couldn’t be higher: a ruling could reshape gun ownership rights for millions, either expanding protections for assault rifles or affirming the ability of states to regulate them in the interest of public safety.
Key Takeaways:
-
Supreme Court narrowly declined to hear challenge on assault weapon bans.
-
Three conservative justices favored hearing the case; Justice Kavanaugh withheld his vote.
-
States like Maryland, California, and others maintain bans on semi-automatic rifles for now.
-
Maryland’s law came after Sandy Hook, targeting “military-style” guns linked to mass shootings.
-
28 million AR-style rifles owned in the U.S.—more than the most popular pickup trucks.
-
Legal debate centers on what the Second Amendment covers regarding modern firearms.
-
Public opinion split: Support handgun rights but favor assault weapon restrictions.
-
Court signaled it may address the issue soon—stay tuned.
Login