>> Click Here To Continue Reading <<
Meanwhile, in Maryland, the group Maryland Shall Issue joined with other plaintiffs in challenging the state’s burdensome licensing scheme. Their argument: the law, which requires fingerprinting, training, and extensive background checks before purchasing a handgun, directly undermines the Second Amendment’s promise. Still, the justices declined to intervene.
The Supreme Court also left untouched two other pending appeals—one concerning Maryland’s broader assault weapon ban and another targeting Rhode Island’s prohibition on large-capacity magazines. In short, the Court chose silence on nearly every major Second Amendment issue before it.
This decision comes even though the Court holds a 6-3 conservative majority that has historically taken an “originalist” approach to gun rights, reaffirming the right to keep and bear arms in landmark rulings dating back to 2008.
Delaware’s 2022 gun law is at the heart of the controversy. It bans semiautomatic rifles such as the AR-15 and AK-47, but allows existing owners to keep their firearms if they meet certain strict requirements. The same legislation prohibits the sale of magazines exceeding 17 rounds, meaning many lawfully owned magazines were suddenly rendered useless.
Those challenging the law include residents who wish to purchase banned firearms, licensed dealers, and major advocacy groups such as the Firearms Policy Coalition and the Second Amendment Foundation. They argue that courts were wrong to dismiss their concerns, pointing out that, as one filing stated, “deprivation of Second Amendment rights necessarily constitutes an irreparable injury.”
But federal judges disagreed. A lower court denied the request for an injunction in 2023, and the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision in 2024. The appeals court downplayed the urgency of protecting gun rights immediately, declaring, “Preliminary injunctions are not automatic. Instead, custom and history have long saved them for very special occasions. This is not a strange case.”
In Maryland, the legal battle revolves around a law passed in 2013 requiring most citizens to obtain a qualification license before buying a handgun. Applicants must submit fingerprints, complete mandatory training, and undergo background checks—a process critics say takes “a month or longer” and discourages law-abiding Americans from exercising their rights. The state, however, defends the law, claiming fingerprinting and safety courses “significantly improve public safety.” The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Maryland.
The Supreme Court’s reluctance to act comes as it continues to grapple with other high-profile gun cases. Just last year, the Court struck down the federal ban on “bump stocks,” devices that increase the firing speed of semi-automatic rifles. In previous years, the Court has issued monumental decisions in 2008, 2010, and 2022 that affirmed and expanded gun rights.
Another significant case is on the horizon. In March, the justices will hear arguments from gun makers Smith & Wesson and Interstate Arms, who are asking the Court to toss out a lawsuit from the Mexican government. Mexico claims the companies contributed to cartel violence by allowing firearms to be smuggled south of the border.
And before summer, the Court is expected to issue a ruling on whether the Biden administration’s 2022 regulation targeting so-called “ghost guns” passes constitutional muster. These firearms, often built from kits, are untraceable and have become a favorite target of gun control advocates.
For now, though, Second Amendment supporters are left waiting—and worried. With the Court dodging these latest challenges, restrictive gun laws in Delaware and Maryland remain in place, raising serious questions about how much longer Americans can count on the highest court to defend their constitutional rights.
