The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a major Second Amendment case that challenged assault weapon bans in Washington, California, and eight other Democratic-led states, signaling for now that such laws will remain intact.
Gun rights advocates had asked the court to consider whether semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15, widely owned across the U.S., are protected under the Constitution. They argued that because these rifles are “in common use by law-abiding citizens,” bans on them violate the Second Amendment.
Related posts
The justices fell one vote short of taking up the case. Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch voted in favor of hearing the appeal. However, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, while critical of the lower court’s decision, declined to join them.
“In my view, this court should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon, in the next Term or two,” Kavanaugh wrote.
The court’s refusal to hear the case lets stand lower court rulings that upheld bans in states like Maryland and Rhode Island, which prohibit the sale or possession of “military-style” assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.
Background and Broader Impact
California was the first state to enact an assault weapons ban in 1989, followed by Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Maryland. These states argue the laws are necessary to address the growing threat of mass shootings, noting that such weapons are designed for combat, not self-defense.
Maryland’s ban was passed after the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in 2012, which killed 20 children and six staff. The state successfully defended the law last year in a 9-5 ruling by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, written by conservative Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson.
“We decline to wield the Constitution to declare that military-style armaments … are beyond the reach of our nation’s democratic processes,” Wilkinson wrote.
A strong dissent by Judge Julius Richardson, a Trump appointee, criticized the ruling, pointing out that 28 million AR-style rifles are in circulation — more than the number of Ford F-Series trucks on U.S. roads.
Legal Context
While the court has in the past expanded gun rights—notably recognizing an individual right to handgun ownership in 2008 and affirming the right to carry a firearm in public in 2022—it has consistently refused to hear cases on assault weapons bans.
The debate now hinges on differing interpretations of the Second Amendment’s historical context. Gun-rights advocates argue no historical precedent exists for banning commonly owned firearms, while opponents point to historical regulations imposed on newly emerging threats like gunpowder storage and machine guns as justification for modern laws targeting semiautomatic rifles.
For now, the status quo remains, with state-level bans on assault weapons still in effect — but the AR-15 issue is likely to return to the high court in the near future.
