>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
That statement alone is likely to reverberate across gun rights circles for weeks.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, appointed by President Donald Trump, agreed with the Court’s decision to pass on the case for now. But he also suggested this fight is far from over. While he concurred in denying review at this stage, he openly expressed doubt that such sweeping prohibitions can survive constitutional scrutiny. He indicated the Court may take up the issue “in the next term or two.”
In other words, this battle is delayed, not defeated.
Maryland enacted its law in the aftermath of the horrific 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Connecticut, where 20 children and six adults were murdered. The gunman used an AR-15-style rifle. In response, lawmakers in several Democrat-led states moved to restrict certain semiautomatic firearms and limit magazine capacity.
Maryland’s statute bans dozens of firearms, including the AR-15, AK-47, and the Barrett .50-caliber rifle. It also caps magazines at ten rounds. Supporters argue these weapons resemble military-style arms and therefore fall outside constitutional protection.
Gun owners and Second Amendment advocates strongly disagree. The challengers in the Maryland case argued that Americans have a constitutional right to purchase and possess commonly owned rifles used by millions for lawful purposes such as sport shooting, home defense, and recreation.
The legal fight comes nearly three years after the Supreme Court’s landmark 2022 ruling that significantly expanded Second Amendment protections. In that decision, the Court directed lower courts to evaluate gun laws based on the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, not on modern policy arguments about public safety.
That ruling triggered a wave of lawsuits nationwide. Courts across the country have grappled with how to apply the historical test. Some gun restrictions have been struck down. Others have survived. The result has been a patchwork of conflicting decisions and growing legal uncertainty.
Ten states and the District of Columbia currently enforce assault weapon bans. Magazine limits exist in more than a dozen states. Congress once enacted a federal assault weapons ban, but it expired in 2004 and has not been renewed.
This week’s decision also included a second denial from Rhode Island, where the Court refused to lift restrictions on high-capacity magazines. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch indicated they would have taken that case as well.
Importantly, both Thomas and Kavanaugh have previously raised serious concerns about these types of bans. In 2011, while serving on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Kavanaugh dissented from a decision upholding a similar prohibition in Washington, D.C., arguing it was unconstitutional. In 2015, Thomas dissented when the Supreme Court declined to review another local AR-15 ban, noting that the “overwhelming majority” of owners use the firearms lawfully.
Since the 2022 expansion of gun rights, the Supreme Court has sent mixed signals. It struck down a federal ban on bump stocks, upheld restrictions preventing individuals under domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms, and allowed regulations targeting so-called ghost guns to stand.
For millions of Americans, however, the question remains unresolved: Can the government outlaw one of the most commonly owned rifles in the country?
Justice Thomas made clear he believes the Court cannot keep dodging that issue forever.
With Kavanaugh hinting that review may come soon, conservatives are already preparing for what could become one of the most consequential Second Amendment rulings in modern history.
The showdown appears inevitable. The only question now is when.
