Supreme Court Declines to Hear AR-15 Ban Challenge

Updated June‍ 3, 2025
‍

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court, divided on the issue of gun rights and the 2nd Amendment, opted not to review a ⁤challenge to state-level bans⁣ on semiautomatic rifles, including ⁢AR-15s. This action leaves existing laws intact in Maryland,California,and eight ⁢other states with similar restrictions⁣ on “assault weapons.”

Gun rights ‍advocates contend that these rifles are commonly owned by millions of law-abiding citizens and ⁤are protected under the 2nd Amendment. The court’s decision,however,fell one vote short of the⁢ necessary threshold to grant a hearing.

Justices Clarence Thomas,‍ Samuel A. Alito Jr., and Neil M.Gorsuch, all conservatives, voted⁢ in favor of hearing the⁣ challenge. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, while expressing reservations about ⁣the lower court’s decision upholding Maryland’s ban, ultimately agreed with the majority to deny the appeal “for now.”

“In my view, this‍ court should and presumably will address the AR–15 ⁢issue soon, ‍in the next Term or⁢ two,” Kavanaugh said.

The appeal, closely watched since December, suggests that a majority of the court, including Chief Justice John⁣ G. Roberts Jr., is ⁣hesitant to strike down state laws restricting semiautomatic weapons. The order allows Maryland and Rhode Island to maintain their prohibitions on the sale or possession of “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines.

California first banned assault weapons in 1989. Connecticut,Delaware,Hawaii,Illinois,Massachusetts,New Jersey,New⁣ York,and Washington have since followed suit. These laws would have been jeopardized had Maryland’s law been deemed unconstitutional. Lawmakers in ⁤these states argue that these rapid-fire weapons pose a significant danger and are needless for self-defense.

Maryland’s ban⁢ specifically⁢ targets “highly hazardous,military-style assault weapons” frequently used in mass shootings. The case hinged ⁤on⁢ interpreting the 2nd Amendment and its guarantee‍ of the “right to keep and bear arms.”

For over a decade, the Supreme Court has largely avoided gun-rights appeals challenging state and local assault weapon bans. While the ⁤court affirmed an individual’s right to self-defense under the 2nd ‍Amendment in 2008, subsequent rulings have had a limited impact.

The⁢ court previously struck down handgun bans in Washington,D.C., and Chicago, and ruled that states cannot deny law-abiding citizens permits to carry concealed weapons.Public opinion polls show that while⁤ most Americans oppose banning handguns, thay generally support banning ⁢semiautomatic assault rifles.

Maryland enacted its “assault weapon”⁢ ban following the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in 2012. judge J. Harvie Wilkinson,a Reagan appointee,upheld the⁣ law,arguing that AR-15s and similar rifles are military-style weapons unsuited for self-defense.

“They are military-style weapons designed ⁢for sustained combat operations that ⁢are ill-suited and disproportionate to ⁤the need for self-defense,” he wrote in a 9-5 decision by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. “We decline to wield the Constitution to declare that military-style armaments which have become primary instruments of⁢ mass killing and⁢ terrorist attacks in the United States‍ are beyond the⁢ reach of our nation’s democratic processes.”

Dissenting judges argued that‍ the 2nd Amendment protects arms “in common use.” Judge Julius Richardson, a Trump‍ appointee, noted the widespread ownership of AR-15s.

“Today, the AR-15 and its variants are one of the ⁢most popular ⁤and widely owned firearms in the Nation,” wrote Judge Julius Richardson, a Trump app