Kavanaugh signals Supreme Court will soon decide constitutionality of banning AR-15's
The Supreme Court declined to take up Monday a case that involves whether possessing AR-15s is protected by the Second Amendment, but the court's conservatives are signaling they soon will.
Only three justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch — voted to hear a challenge to Maryland's ban on possessing AR-15s, barely falling short of the four votes required to take up a case.
But Justice Brett Kavanaugh sent a strong signal that he will provide that crucial fourth vote in a future case once the issue percolates more in the lower courts.
'In my view, this Court should and presumably will address the AR–15 issue soon, in the next Term or two,' Kavanaugh wrote in a three-page written statement.
Kavanaugh, President Trump's second appointee to the court, called Maryland's law 'questionable.' But he stressed the issue is currently being considered by several appeals courts that are weighing other states' bans.
'Opinions from other Courts of Appeals should assist this Court's ultimate decisionmaking on the AR–15 issue,' Kavanaugh wrote.
The constitutionality of such laws has become a flashpoint in the legal battles over gun control. The Supreme Court has issued multiple expansions of Second Amendment rights in recent years but has yet to settle how those rulings apply to AR-15 bans.
Maryland is one of nine states that have banned the possession of AR-15s, the most popular civilian rifle in America. Maryland enacted its law in 2013 following the Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Maryland's law by ruling AR-15s are not 'constitutionally protected arms' under the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case leaves intact that ruling.
The trio of other conservative justices said they would've taken up the issue now.
'I would not wait to decide whether the government can ban the most popular rifle in America. That question is of critical importance to tens of millions of law-abiding AR–15 owners throughout the country. We have avoided deciding it for a full decade,' Thomas wrote in a solo, written dissent.
He added, 'I doubt we would sit idly by if lower courts were to so subvert our precedents involving any other constitutional right.'
Alito and Gorsuch did not join Thomas's written dissent and did not author their own to explain their reasoning.
The court's refusal to hear the case came as they also turned away a challenge to Rhode Island's ban on high-capacity magazines. Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch indicated they also would've taken up that case.
In that dispute, four gun owners and a local hunting store accused lower courts of contorting the Supreme Court's recent expansions on Second Amendment rights to uphold Rhode Island's restrictions.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
34 minutes ago
- New York Post
Americans are starting to learn who ‘Maryland father' Abrego Garcia really is
For a while, the favored moniker for Kilmar Abrego Garcia in the media was 'Maryland father.' Abrego Garcia was indeed living in Maryland and was indeed a father, but this wasn't what was most distinctive thing about him. There are hundreds of thousands of fathers living in the state who aren't illegal immigrants and don't have ties to criminal gangs. Abrego Garcia, of course, is the man who was mistakenly deported to the notorious CECOT prison in El Salvador despite a judge's order that he couldn't be deported there. Instead of quickly asking for Abrego Garcia to be sent back to the United States, the Trump administration dug in its heels and suffered repeated legal setbacks, including at the Supreme Court. Sensing political opportunity and appalled at the notion of someone living in the US being sent, based on no criminal charges, to perhaps the most inhumane prison in the Western Hemisphere, Democrats made Abrego Garcia a cause. They inevitably downplayed the drip-drip evidence that he was an unsympathetic character. It emerged that he had been picked up by local police in 2019 at a Home Depot years ago and the cops suspected that he and his associates were gang members. It emerged that his wife accused him of abusing her. It emerged that he'd been stopped in Tennessee in suspicious circumstances in 2022 with multiple men in the vehicle. Whether Abrego Garcia was a good guy or a reprobate, a member of MS-13 or of his church choir, had no bearing on whether he should have been imprisoned in El Salvador with our active support. The answer to that was 'no' regardless, but now that the Trump administration has brought him back to the United States and filed charges against him, the 'Maryland father' description has been exposed as ludicrously inapt. According to a Department of Justice indictment, Abrego Garcia routinely engaged in human smuggling, transporting illegal aliens within the United States on more than 100 occasions. The facts set out in the indictment regarding the Tennessee traffic stop are particularly damning. Abrego Garcia's story was that the men in his Suburban had been working construction in St. Louis for two weeks and he was bringing them back to Maryland. The men, all lacking identification, had no luggage or construction tools. The vehicle was outfitted with a makeshift third row for passengers in the back. All of which was suspicious enough. What's more, the indictment says, license-plate tracking data showed that the car hadn't been anywhere close to St. Louis in the past year. It had, however, been in the Houston, Texas, area, where the prosecutors say the illegal-alien passengers had been picked up. The administration will have to prove its charges in court, and if they have been exaggerated in the cause of nailing Abrego Garcia, that will presumably be exposed. The facts matter, and Abrego Garcia never should have been made into a mere symbol. The administration seemed to think keeping him in El Salvador somehow furthered the cause of immigration enforcement, but whether Abrego Garcia stayed there or came back to the United States wasn't going to materially affect deportation efforts one way or the other. For their part, Trump's critics — yet again — assumed because someone was targeted by the president, he or she must be a figure of righteousness. The fact of the matter is that Abrego Garcia never should have been in the United States in the first place. He came here illegally in 2012. Only after he was picked up by police in the aforementioned 2019 stop and put in deportation proceedings did he make a meritless asylum claim. An immigration judge nevertheless granted him a withholding of removal and Abrego Garcia was permitted to go about his business, which, according to the Justice Department, was smuggling other illegal immigrants. We'll learn more as the case proceeds, but we know enough already to conclude that this isn't a typical or commendable Marylander. Twitter: @RichLowry
Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Bloomberg
California to Sue Over ‘Illegal and Unconstitutional' Use of Troops
Donald Trump has been making a habit of invoking emergency powers to provide legal justification for unprecedented actions, ranging from launching a global trade war without the assent of Congress to using a two century-old wartime law to deprive undocumented immigrants of due process in an effort to deport them. In both cases, legal experts said there was no suitable emergency in the first place, and that the actions violated the letter of the laws being cited. (Also in both examples, litigation ensued that will likely end up before a Supreme Court that's demonstrated a keen willingness to expand presidential power.) So when it comes to the Republican president's latest gambit—invoking yet another emergency power to send National Guard troops to Los Angeles—California Governor Gavin Newsom says Trump has gone and done it again. The state said it is suing the administration for what it calls the illegal deployment of its troops—which the Democratic governor condemned as ' illegal and unconstitutional.'
Miami Herald
2 hours ago
- Miami Herald
PRESS RELEASE: LIE to YOUR BANK and LOSE YOUR GUNS RIGHTS, Says US COURT of APPEALS. (Opinion Attached)
Zherka: 'My Banks Got Paid, My Rights Got Taken' - Government Overreach Mirrors Trump's Political Witch Hunt Real estate titan vows Supreme Court appeal after court upholds lifetime gun ban for nonviolent conviction: 'This is lawfare, plain and simple.' NEW YORK, NY / ACCESS Newswire / June 9, 2025 / On June 9, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that real estate magnate and political commentator Selim "Sam" Zherka can be permanently stripped of his Second Amendment rights-even though his conviction was for a nonviolent financial offense, for lying to his bank yet his banks were paid in full, and no one lost a dime. The ruling, in Zherka v. Bondi, upheld the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), a statute that prohibits felons from possessing firearms if the firearm has ever moved in or affected interstate commerce. Zherka, who has no history of violence, challenged the law as unconstitutional "as applied" to him. "I filed an as-applied challenge to the constitutionality of § 922(g), which prohibits felons from possessing any firearm that has moved in or affects interstate commerce," Zherka said. "There are currently conflicting opinions among the federal circuits, which makes my case ripe for a Supreme Court challenge." Zherka drew a direct comparison between his case and that of President Donald J. Trump. "I built a major real estate business like Trump. I was outspoken against both parties. I ran a newspaper that exposed corrupt politicians-and they came after me just like they're going after him. My banks all got paid and love me. But this didn't matter. It's the same political witch hunt." "This decision poses a threat to every American," he warned. "It allows the government to strip away your constitutional rights based on a technicality-without any violence, without any harm, without any loss. Every American who has ever filled out a credit application should be very concerned. Even if you pay your bills, beware." "This decision opens the door to the government's ability to strip any American of their rights-not for violence or harm-but simply for allegedly lying. That is not what our forefathers intended. That is not freedom." The Second Circuit acknowledged that Zherka is part of "the people" protected by the Second Amendment, but ruled that Congress may disarm him anyway based on the fact of a felony conviction-regardless of context or threat. "I respect the Judges but strongly disagree with their decision," Zherka said. "I'm taking this to the Supreme Court. And God willing, a victory there will not only restore my rights-it will set a precedent that protects President Trump and every other American from being railroaded." The case comes amid national debate over political prosecutions, government overreach, and whether nonviolent financial offenders can be stripped of fundamental rights-without due process and without individualized review. (Opinion of the US Court of Appeals 2nd Circuit attached ) Contact Information Sam Zherka samzherka@ SOURCE: Concrete Ventures LLC press release
