Victory for Gun Control? Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Assault Weapons Ban!

he Supreme Court on Monday turned away a challenge to Maryland’s ban on so-called assault weapons, effectively upholding a lower court ruling that had sustained the law.

By refusing to review the decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, the high court has for the time being avoided a direct confrontation over the extent to which the Second Amendment allows states to regulate the types of rifles frequently used in mass shootings. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch expressed their disagreement with the Supreme Court’s decision to not hear the case.

The Supreme Court had previously declined to take up the legal battle over Maryland’s law last year, as a federal appeals court had not yet issued a ruling. However, the 4th Circuit subsequently upheld the measure in August of last year, concluding that weapons like the AR-15 could be prohibited, partly because they fall outside the scope of Second Amendment protection.

Despite this decision, the broader question of whether AR-15s and similar firearms are protected by the Second Amendment is anticipated to be addressed by the Supreme Court in the near future. In a separate statement, Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted that this issue is currently under consideration in other federal appeals courts, and the rulings from these courts “should assist this court’s ultimate decisionmaking.” He predicted that appeals to the Supreme Court on this matter will likely be presented to the court “shortly,” and stated that the justices “should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon, in the next term or two.”

In addition to rejecting the appeal concerning Maryland’s prohibition, the Supreme Court also declined to consider a challenge to Rhode Island’s ban on large-capacity magazines, thus keeping that law in effect. The court’s decision to turn away the appeal from four gun owners and a firearms dealer leaves intact a lower court ruling that had refused to block the enforcement of Rhode Island’s ban, finding that the challengers had not adequately demonstrated that they were likely to succeed in their legal claims.