The Supreme Court just dodged a bullet on gun rights. On June 2, it refused to hear challenges to restrictive gun laws in Maryland and Rhode Island, as SCOTUS blog reports, leaving Second Amendment advocates fuming. This punt keeps the fight for constitutional clarity in limbo.
The Court sidestepped the case of Snope v. Brown, which questions Maryland’s ban on semiautomatic rifles, and Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island, which challenged a ban on magazines holding over 10 rounds. Both cases lingered through 15 conferences, with Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch ready to dive in, but lacking the crucial fourth vote. A missed chance to reinforce the right to bear arms.
Maryland’s 2013 law, spurred by the 2012 Sandy Hook tragedy, bans rifles like the AR-15, despite their popularity. Nine other states and D.C. mimic this restriction, claiming these are battlefield tools, not self-defense gear. The left’s fear of firepower ignores the millions who own these rifles lawfully.
The 4th Circuit upheld Maryland’s ban in 2017 and again in 2024, leaning on the 2008 Heller decision allowing limits on military-style weapons. Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson called these rifles “designed for sustained combat,” unfit for civilian hands. His logic dismisses the AR-15’s widespread use by law-abiding citizens.
Wilkinson’s ruling claims the ban fits a tradition of regulating dangerous weapons while preserving self-defense. That’s a convenient dodge, pretending smaller guns suffice when criminals don’t play by the rules. The Second Amendment isn’t about hunting ducks -- it’s about real protection.
Judge Julius Richardson’s dissent cut through the haze, arguing the banned rifles are “commonly possessed” for lawful purposes. “Second Amendment is not a second-class right,” he snapped, exposing the 4th Circuit’s shaky reasoning. His words resonate with Americans who value their constitutional freedoms.
The Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision, striking down New York’s concealed-carry law, demanded that gun laws align with historical traditions. Maryland’s challengers, citing Bruen, noted AR-15s dominate U.S. rifle sales, owned by millions. The 4th Circuit’s dismissal of this fact feels like judicial sleight of hand.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in a statement, signaled AR-15s are likely in “common use” and protected. He called the 4th Circuit’s ruling “questionable” and predicted the Court will tackle this soon. Kavanaugh’s hint offers hope, but the delay frustrates those clinging to their rights.
Justice Clarence Thomas dissented sharply, insisting AR-15s are “arms” under the Second Amendment, not exotic toys. He argued Maryland’s ban lacks historical roots, a point progressives sidestep with emotional appeals. Thomas’s clarity exposes the Court’s hesitation as a betrayal of principle.
In Rhode Island, a 2022 law bans magazines holding over 10 rounds, passed after the Uvalde shooting. Owners had until December 2022 to comply by modifying or ditching their magazines. The state’s nanny-state approach assumes law-abiding citizens can’t be trusted with standard gear.
Four gun owners and a store challenged the ban, but the 1st Circuit upheld it, claiming 10 rounds suffice for self-defense. The court argued the ban aligns with historical public safety regulations. That’s a stretch when magazines are standard for millions of legal firearms.
Rhode Island defends the ban, saying smaller magazines force pauses in shootings, saving lives. They call magazines “accessories,” not arms, dodging Second Amendment scrutiny. This semantic game insults the Constitution’s plain meaning.
Challengers argued the ban violates the Fifth Amendment by seizing property without compensation. Rhode Island’s response -- that owners can modify or transfer magazines -- feels like a bureaucratic shrug. Forcing citizens to gut their lawfully bought gear isn’t justice; it’s overreach.
The 1st Circuit’s ruling leaned on the idea that civilians rarely need over 10 rounds. Tell that to someone facing multiple attackers, where every second counts. The court’s ivory-tower logic ignores real-world threats law-abiding citizens prepare for.
With Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissenting, the Court’s refusal to hear these cases leaves gun owners in a lurch. Kavanaugh’s promise of future review is cold comfort when rights are on hold. The fight for the Second Amendment continues, undeterred by judicial timidity.
