
Supreme Court denies challenges to state laws banning assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear two major gun cases challenging a Maryland gun law that bans assault-style weapons and a Rhode Island restriction on large-capacity magazines.
As a result, the two laws remain in effect. Litigation over similar bans across the country is ongoing and the issue is likely to return to the justices.
The court has a 6-3 conservative majority that has expanded gun rights but has shown a reluctance in recent months to take up a new case on the scope of the right to bear arms under the Constitution's Second Amendment.
It seems likely the court will take up the assault weapons issue soon, with three conservative justices saying they voted to take it up and another, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, saying he would like the justices to hear a case ion the issue in the next couple of years.
Four votes are needed for the court to hear a case.
The court in a major 2022 ruling expanded gun rights by finding for the first time that the right to bear arms extends outside the home.
That has led to a wave of both new restrictions being imposed in some states and court rulings that have struck down some longstanding gun laws. Both these developments have led to a flurry of appeals at the court asking the justices to clarify the scope of the 2022 ruling.
The Maryland law bans what the state calls 'assault weapons' akin to weapons of war like the M16 rifle as well as the AR-15. The measure became law in 2013 in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook school shooting, in which 20 children and six adults were killed the previous year.
That law was upheld by the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals before the Supreme Court's 2022. A new set of plaintiffs then filed a lawsuit, and the Supreme Court ordered the appeals court to take a second look at the issue. It reached the same conclusion in an August 2024 ruling.
"The assault weapons at issue fall outside the ambit of protection offered by the Second Amendment because, in essence, they are military-style weapons designed for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense," the court concluded.
The Rhode Island law, enacted just before the Supreme Court issued the 2022 ruling, prevents people from possessing magazines that contain more than 10 rounds.
Lower courts, including the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, upheld the ban, which was challenged by four gun owners and a firearms store called Big Bear Hunting and Fishing Supply.
The Supreme Court last July sidestepped multiple gun-related disputes soon after it issued a ruling that upheld a federal law that prohibits people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms.
In a case that did not directly address the right to bear arms, the court on March 26 upheld a Biden administration bid to regulate 'ghost gun' kits that can be easily assembled to make firearms.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


BreakingNews.ie
19 minutes ago
- BreakingNews.ie
US Supreme Court asked to pause order reinstating Education Department staff
The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to pause a court order to reinstate Education Department employees who were fired in mass lay-offs as part of President Donald Trump's plan to dismantle the agency. The Justice Department's emergency appeal to the high court on Friday said US District Judge Myong Joun in Boston exceeded his authority last month when he issued a preliminary injunction reversing the lay-offs of nearly 1,400 people and putting the broader plan on hold. Advertisement Mr Joun's order has blocked one of Mr Trump's biggest campaign promises and effectively stalled the effort to wind down the department. A federal appeals court refused to put the order on hold while the administration appealed.


North Wales Chronicle
32 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Liberty loses bid to bring legal action against equalities body
The UK's highest court ruled in April that the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex, after a challenge against the Scottish Government by campaign group For Women Scotland. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is consulting on proposed amendments to part of its guidance, after interim guidance was published last month related to trans people's use of certain spaces including toilets and participation in sports following the judgment. The commission increased the length of time for feedback from an original proposal of two weeks to six weeks, but campaign group Liberty said that it should be at least 12 weeks, claiming the current period would be 'wholly insufficient' and unlawful. Liberty made a bid to bring a legal challenge over the length of the consultation, but in a decision on Friday afternoon Mr Justice Swift said it was not arguable. In his ruling, Mr Justice Swift said: 'There is no 12-week rule. The requirements of fairness are measured in specifics and context is important.' 'I am not satisfied that it is arguable that the six-week consultation period that the EHRC has chosen to use is unfair,' he added. At the hearing on Friday, Sarah Hannett KC, for Liberty, said in written submissions that the Supreme Court's decision 'has altered the landscape radically and suddenly' and potentially changes the way trans people access single-sex spaces and services. The barrister said this included some businesses preventing trans women from using female toilets and trans men from using male toilets, as well as British Transport Police updating its policy on strip searches, which have caused 'understandable distress to trans people'. Ms Hannett said a six-week consultation period would be unlawful because the EHRC has not given 'sufficient time' for consultees to give 'intelligent consideration and an intelligent response'. She told the London court: 'There is a desire amongst the bigger trans organisations to assist the smaller trans organisations in responding… That is something that is going to take some time.' Later in her written submissions, the barrister described the trans community as 'particularly vulnerable and currently subject to intense scrutiny and frequent harassment'. Ms Hannett added: 'There is evidence of distrust of both consultation processes and the commission within the community.' Lawyers for the EHRC said the legal challenge should not go ahead and that six weeks was 'adequate'. James Goudie KC, for the commission, told the hearing there is 'no magic at all in 12 weeks'. He said in written submissions: 'Guidance consistent with the Supreme Court's decision has become urgently needed. The law as declared by the Supreme Court is not to come in at some future point. 'It applies now, and has been applying for some time.' The barrister later said that misinformation had been spreading about the judgment, adding that it was 'stoking what was already an often heated and divisive debate about gender in society'. He continued: 'The longer it takes for EHRC to issue final guidance in the form of the code, the greater the opportunity for misinformation and disinformation to take hold, to the detriment of persons with different protected characteristics.' Mr Goudie also said that there was a previous 12-week consultation on the guidance at large starting in October 2024.


South Wales Guardian
an hour ago
- South Wales Guardian
Liberty loses bid to bring legal action against equalities body
The UK's highest court ruled in April that the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex, after a challenge against the Scottish Government by campaign group For Women Scotland. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is consulting on proposed amendments to part of its guidance, after interim guidance was published last month related to trans people's use of certain spaces including toilets and participation in sports following the judgment. The commission increased the length of time for feedback from an original proposal of two weeks to six weeks, but campaign group Liberty said that it should be at least 12 weeks, claiming the current period would be 'wholly insufficient' and unlawful. Liberty made a bid to bring a legal challenge over the length of the consultation, but in a decision on Friday afternoon Mr Justice Swift said it was not arguable. In his ruling, Mr Justice Swift said: 'There is no 12-week rule. The requirements of fairness are measured in specifics and context is important.' 'I am not satisfied that it is arguable that the six-week consultation period that the EHRC has chosen to use is unfair,' he added. At the hearing on Friday, Sarah Hannett KC, for Liberty, said in written submissions that the Supreme Court's decision 'has altered the landscape radically and suddenly' and potentially changes the way trans people access single-sex spaces and services. The barrister said this included some businesses preventing trans women from using female toilets and trans men from using male toilets, as well as British Transport Police updating its policy on strip searches, which have caused 'understandable distress to trans people'. Ms Hannett said a six-week consultation period would be unlawful because the EHRC has not given 'sufficient time' for consultees to give 'intelligent consideration and an intelligent response'. She told the London court: 'There is a desire amongst the bigger trans organisations to assist the smaller trans organisations in responding… That is something that is going to take some time.' Later in her written submissions, the barrister described the trans community as 'particularly vulnerable and currently subject to intense scrutiny and frequent harassment'. Ms Hannett added: 'There is evidence of distrust of both consultation processes and the commission within the community.' Lawyers for the EHRC said the legal challenge should not go ahead and that six weeks was 'adequate'. James Goudie KC, for the commission, told the hearing there is 'no magic at all in 12 weeks'. He said in written submissions: 'Guidance consistent with the Supreme Court's decision has become urgently needed. The law as declared by the Supreme Court is not to come in at some future point. 'It applies now, and has been applying for some time.' The barrister later said that misinformation had been spreading about the judgment, adding that it was 'stoking what was already an often heated and divisive debate about gender in society'. He continued: 'The longer it takes for EHRC to issue final guidance in the form of the code, the greater the opportunity for misinformation and disinformation to take hold, to the detriment of persons with different protected characteristics.' Mr Goudie also said that there was a previous 12-week consultation on the guidance at large starting in October 2024.