The Supreme Court of the United States refused to hear a case challenging Maryland’s “assault weapons” ban and a case challenging Rhode Island’s “large capacity” magazine ban, but showed openness to take an “assault weapons” and “large capacity” magazine ban challenge in the future.
The Justices voted three to six not to take the cases, with Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samual Alito, and Neil Gorsuch voting to grant the writ of certiorari. Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh voted against taking either case but predicted that the High Court would take up the issues in another case within the subsequent two sessions.
Snope v. Brown challenged the State’s “assault weapons” ban. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled against the challenger, claiming that the Second Amendment does not protect firearms such as AR-15s.
In a dissenting opinion regarding the denial of cert, Justice Thomas took issue with the appeals court’s opinion that AR-15s are not protected arms. He highlighted that the AR-15 is in common use. The Supreme Court’s Heller decision held that arms that are in common use cannot be banned.
The dissent reads: “This case primarily concerns Maryland’s ban on the AR–15, a semi-automatic rifle. Americans today possess an estimated 20 to 30 million AR–15s. And AR–15s are legal in 41 of the 50 States, meaning that the States such as Maryland that prohibit AR–15s are something of an outlier. See Staples v. United States, 511 U. S. 600, 612 (1994) (stating that AR–15s’ traditionally have been widely as lawful possessions’)”
Justice Thomas also called out the Fourth Circuit for flipping the burden of step two of the Bruen test standard onto the plaintiffs. Under the Bruen test, once the plaintiffs show that their conduct is protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment, the burden falls to the states to show through historical analogues that the law is consistent with the nation’s history and tradition of firearms regulations. Instead of following the guidelines, the lower Court instructed the plaintiffs to provide examples from the founding era that demonstrated the unconstitutionality of “assault weapons” bans, which is an almost impossible task.
The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) filed the Snope case and stated that the Supreme Court erred in not granting cert in the gun rights suit.
The organization highlighted that even though Justice Kavanaugh’s insinuation that the Court will take up one of the other “assault weapons” ban cases working their way through the courts could be seen as good news, it doesn’t help the millions of Americans affected by such constitutionally dubious bans.
“The Supreme Court’s decision to deny cert in Snope v. Brown is an egregious error that sidesteps addressing an important issue which requires the Court’s intervention. Millions of Americans continue to be disenfranchised from exercising their complete Second Amendment rights by virtue of these categorical bans. While Justice Kavanaugh’s statement insinuates the Court may hear one of the many other challenges percolating in the lower courts, as Justice Thomas points out, their input is of little value as they continue to distort the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment precedents. SAF will continue to aggressively litigate its seven other challenges to bans on “assault weapons” and spare no resource to ensure the right to keep and bear arms is not continued to be treated as ‘a second-class right.’”
Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island was a challenge to the State’s ban on magazines holding more than ten rounds. The State calls their magazines “large” capacity, whereas most in the gun community consider these magazines “standard” capacity, since these are the size magazines shipped with firearms. Since the State requires magazines smaller than the standard size, it would be more accurate to refer to the size of the magazines that are legal by the State as “low” capacity.
With Justice Gorsuch’s comments, it seems like only a matter of time before the Supreme Court takes up both an “assault weapons” ban and a “large” capacity magazine case. Many cases working their way through the lower courts cover both issues in a single case.
About John Crump
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
