Your cart is currently empty!
On June 2, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear two pivotal cases challenging state-level restrictions on firearms: Maryland’s ban on semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15 and Rhode Island’s prohibition on magazines holding more than ten rounds. By refusing to review these cases, the Court leaves in place lower court decisions that many argue infringe upon the constitutional rights of millions of Americans.
Background of the Cases
Maryland’s 2013 legislation, enacted in the aftermath of the tragic Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, prohibits the possession and sale of certain semiautomatic rifles deemed “assault weapons,” including the popular AR-15. Rhode Island’s 2022 law, similarly motivated by concerns over mass shootings, bans the possession of magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition.
Challengers to these laws argued that such firearms and accessories are in “common use” for lawful purposes, such as self-defense and sporting activities, and thus are protected under the Second Amendment. They contended that the bans effectively criminalize the possession of widely owned firearms and magazines, infringing upon individual rights.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
In a brief order, the Supreme Court declined to hear appeals in both cases, effectively upholding the lower courts’ decisions that the bans are constitutional. Notably, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented, expressing concern over the Court’s reluctance to address significant Second Amendment questions. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, while agreeing with the decision to decline the cases at this time, indicated that the Court should and likely will address the constitutionality of such bans in the near future.
Implications for Second Amendment Jurisprudence
The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear these cases leaves unresolved critical questions about the extent of Second Amendment protections. In its 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court affirmed an individual’s right to possess firearms for lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. However, the Court also acknowledged that this right is not unlimited and that certain longstanding prohibitions and regulations are permissible.
By not addressing the current bans, the Court allows lower courts to continue interpreting the Second Amendment in ways that may vary significantly across jurisdictions. This patchwork approach can lead to confusion and unequal application of constitutional rights.
The Need for Clarity
The lack of a definitive ruling from the nation’s highest court on these issues leaves millions of law-abiding gun owners in a state of uncertainty. As Justice Thomas noted in his dissent, the question of whether the government can ban the most popular rifle in America is of critical importance. Without clear guidance, states may continue to enact restrictive laws that challenge the balance between public safety and individual rights.
Looking Ahead
While the Supreme Court has declined to hear these cases now, the issue is far from settled. As more states consider or implement similar bans, and as legal challenges continue to emerge, the Court will likely be compelled to address the constitutionality of such measures. Until then, the debate over the scope of the Second Amendment and the rights it guarantees remains a contentious and unresolved issue in American law.
Leave a Reply