FOLLOW US

The Supreme Court’s denial leaves standing the Fourth Circuit’s 10-5 ruling that upheld Maryland’s ban on AR-15s, AK-47s, and similar semiautomatic weapons. The court argued such rifles “fall outside the ambit” of Second Amendment protections and align with a historical tradition of restricting weapons deemed “excessively dangerous.”

But Justice Thomas issued a searing solo dissent, calling the decision “surprising” and charging that the appellate court imposed an unjustified burden on challengers. He emphasized that AR-15s, based on their wide civilian use and classification as “arms,” deserve presumptive constitutional protection.

“The Fourth Circuit inverted the burden,” Thomas wrote, “and treated the Second Amendment like a second-class right. We would not allow this for any other constitutional liberty.”

From Heller to Bruen: Legal History in the Crosshairs

The Maryland case was spearheaded by David Snope and three pro-Second Amendment groups, who argued that the Fourth Circuit’s decision undermines the Supreme Court’s own precedents in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022).

They contend that AR-15s, while initially designed for military use, were commercially adapted for lawful civilian purposes, distinguishing them from true military-grade weapons. The plaintiffs claim Maryland’s ban turns a commonly used firearm into a constitutionally unprotected item, contradicting Heller's holding that the Second Amendment secures firearms in “common use” for lawful purposes.

Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown countered that the case is premature and lacks a circuit split, a traditional prerequisite for Supreme Court review. Brown argued the Fourth Circuit followed historical precedent and that Maryland’s ban fits within a strong tradition of regulating weapons posing significant public danger.

Rhode Island Ban Also Left Standing: High-Capacity Magazine Challenge Derailed

In a parallel case, the justices also declined to hear a challenge to Rhode Island’s ban on large-capacity ammunition feeding devices, brought by Ocean State Tactical LLC and four residents. They argued the ban failed under Bruen's historical test, but the First Circuit upheld the restriction without separate commentary from the Supreme Court.

The challengers, represented by former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, claimed lower courts rubber-stamped unconstitutional restrictions under the guise of tradition.

States and Gun Rights Groups Demand Certainty

The pressure on the court is mounting. Twenty-seven states and the National Rifle Association filed amicus briefs urging review, arguing the Fourth Circuit sidestepped constitutional text and substituted historical cherry-picking in its ruling. They warned that if left unchecked, courts could ban any weapon by invoking vague historical analogies.

“The court decided an assortment of minor laws justified banning common arms,” the NRA stated. “That logic would have upheld the handgun ban struck down in Heller.”

Meanwhile, pro-gun-control states and lawmakers argued the court should allow more cases to percolate, letting appellate courts refine the doctrine before a national standard is imposed.