logo
Supreme Court lets stand Maryland's assault weapons ban — for now

Supreme Court lets stand Maryland's assault weapons ban — for now

Yahoo03-06-2025
The facade of the U.S. Supreme Court, covered with scaffolding for construction, in a file photo from April 22, 2025. (Photo by William J. Ford/Maryland Matters)
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday let stand Maryland's decade-old ban on assault weapons, over the objections of four conservative justices who were ready to review a lower court's defense of the law that they called 'dubious' and 'questionable.'
'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,' Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a dissenting opinion. 'We have avoided deciding it for a full decade.'
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, noted that the high court's decision not to hear an appeal of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal's August ruling 'does not mean that the Court agrees with a lower-court decision or that the issue is not worthy of review.' He predicted that, with similar cases currently working their way through other circuits, the court 'should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon, in the next Term or two.'
But state officials welcomed Monday's court decision.
'The U.S. Supreme Court's decision today to leave Maryland's assault weapons ban intact means that a critical law that prevents senseless and preventable deaths will remain in effect,' said a statement from Attorney General Anthony Brown, the target of the appeal.
'Our Office will continue to advocate for gun safety laws at the General Assembly and will defend Maryland's common-sense gun reforms in court. We will do whatever we can to protect Marylanders from this horrific violence,' his statement said.
Federal appeals court upholds 2013 Maryland assault weapons ban
The high court on Monday also let stand Rhode Island's 2022 ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines. Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch were also ready to hear that case, which challenged a state law that prohibits the possession, sale or transfer of a firearm magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
The 2013 Maryland law banning assault weapons came one year after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, where 26 people, including 20 children, were shot and killed. The shooter in that case used an AR-15-style rifle along with two handguns.
Gun-rights groups quickly challenged the law, and were given more ammunition by a string of recent Supreme Court rulings that vastly expanded protections under the Second Amendment's right to bear arms.
The 4th Circuit had previously upheld Maryland's assault weapons ban. But the Supreme Court ordered the circuit court to reconsider that ruling in light of the high court's 2022 decision in New York State Police & Rifle Association vs. Bruen — in which it the court said citizens did not need a 'good and substantial' reason to carry a concealed weapon, the burden was on the government to prove the need for such a restriction.
A divided 4th Circuit ruled 10-5 last August that Maryland's ban on assault weapons was constitutional, even in light of Bruen. Circuit Judge Harvie Wilkinson III wrote for the majority that weapons such as the AK-47, AR-15 and Barrett .50 caliber sniper rifle, '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.'
An appeal quickly followed, but the court's refusal to hear the case means the 4th Circuit ruling stands. In his dissent, Thomas said the appellate court 'placed the burden … on the wrong party.'
'The Fourth Circuit erred by requiring the challengers to prove that the Second Amendment protects their right to own AR–15s' when, in fact, the burden is on the government to justify its regulation of the weapons, he wrote.
Del. Luke Clippinger (D-Baltimore City), who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, said in a text message he is pleased the Supreme Court upheld the state's law 'for now.'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
'Maryland's Assault Weapons Ban is critical for keeping Marylanders safe. These dangerous weapons like the AR-15 are military-style weapons designed for combat and not protected by the Second Amendment,' Clippinger wrote. 'As a country and as a State, we still have more work to do to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. But for today, we celebrate that the Supreme Court has allowed our Assault Weapons Ban to remain.'
Nine other states, Washington, D.C., and other cities have approved similar bans on assault weapons. But Kavanaugh wrote that an estimated 15 million to 20 million Americans 'possess' an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle.
'Meaning that the States such as Maryland that prohibit AR–15s are something of an outlier,' he wrote.
That's why Mark Pennak, president of the gun rights group Maryland Shall Issue, said in a brief interview Monday he agrees with Kavanaugh that other pending cases will provide an opportunity.
'Because there are other cases that are pending out there involving the same issue … let the issue percolate some more which is standard Supreme Court practice,' he said. 'This issue is not over.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

California Republicans file suit to halt redistricting plan
California Republicans file suit to halt redistricting plan

The Hill

time8 minutes ago

  • The Hill

California Republicans file suit to halt redistricting plan

California Republican legislators on Tuesday announced a state Supreme Court petition, an effort to stop Gov. Gavin Newsom's (D) plan to redistrict House seats in the Golden State. 'Today I joined my colleagues in filing a lawsuit challenging the rushed redistricting process. California's Constitution requires bills to be in print for 30 days, but that safeguard was ignored. By bypassing this provision, Sacramento has effectively shut voters out of engaging in their own legislative process,' Assemblyman Tri Ta said on X. The petition cites a section of the state constitution that requires a month-long review period for new legislation. Democrats are working quickly to set up a special election that would let voters weigh in on the redistricting plan. Four state Republican legislators have signed on to the petition, according to a copy for a writ of mandate, shared by the New York Times. They're asking for immediate relief, no later than Aug. 20, and arguing that action can't be taken on the legislative package before Sep. 18. 'Last night, we filed a petition with the California Supreme Court to stop the California legislature from violating the rights of the people of California,' said Mike Columbo, a partner at Dhillon Law Group, in a Tuesday press conference alongside California Republicans. 'The California constitution clearly gives the people of California the right to see new legislation that the legislature is going to consider, and it gives them the right to review it for 30 days,' Columbo said. California Democrats swiftly introduced the redistricting legislative package when they reconvened after summer break on Monday, and are expected to vote as soon as Thursday. They have until Friday to complete the plan in time to set up a Nov. 4 special election. Columbo called that pace of action a 'flagrant violation' under the state constitution. Democrats are aiming to put a ballot measure before voters that would allow temporary redistricting, effectively bypassing the existing independent redistricting commission — which was approved by voters more than a decade ago and typically redistricts after each census — to redraw lines in direct response to GOP gerrymandering in other states. California Republicans have vowed to fight back. Democrats, on the other hand, are stressing that they're moving transparently to let voters have the final say on whether redistricting happens.

Hillary Clinton: Supreme Court ‘will do to gay marriage what they did to abortion'
Hillary Clinton: Supreme Court ‘will do to gay marriage what they did to abortion'

The Hill

time38 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Hillary Clinton: Supreme Court ‘will do to gay marriage what they did to abortion'

2016 Democratic presidential nominee and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says she believes the Supreme Court is poised to overturn its landmark ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which effectively legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, and that unmarried same-sex couples 'ought to consider' tying the knot. 'American voters, and to some extent the American media, don't understand how many years the Republicans have been working in order to get us to this point,' Clinton told Fox News host Jessica Tarlov on Friday in a wide-ranging interview on 'Raging Moderates,' the podcast Tarlov co-hosts with Scott Galloway. 'It took 50 years to overturn Roe v. Wade,' Clinton said. 'The Supreme Court will hear a case about gay marriage; my prediction is they will do to gay marriage what they did to abortion — they will send it back to the states.' 'Anybody in a committed relationship out there in the LGBTQ community, you ought to consider getting married because I don't think they'll undo existing marriages, but I fear they will undo the national right,' she said. In July, Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who was briefly jailed in 2015 for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, formally asked the Supreme Court to revisit its Obergefell decision, which celebrated its 10th anniversary in June. The justices have not yet said whether they will take up the case. If Obergefell were overturned, same-sex marriage rights would still be protected by the Respect for Marriage Act, a bipartisan measure signed by former President Biden in 2022 that requires all states and the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states where they are legal. 'Zombie laws' against marriage equality in more than half the nation are unenforceable because of the Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell. The Respect for Marriage Act, introduced after Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said the court 'should reconsider' decisions including Obergefell after overturning the federal right to abortion, prevents state statutes and constitutional amendments banning gay marriage from being enforced on already married couples, but it does not render them entirely obsolete. In addition to Thomas, Justice Samuel Alito has also voiced opposition to the Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell, to which he and Thomas dissented in 2015. Last winter, in a five-page statement explaining the court's decision not to involve itself in a dispute between the Missouri Department of Corrections and jurors dismissed for disapproving of same-sex marriage on religious grounds, Alito wrote that the conflict 'exemplifies the danger' he had long anticipated would come from the ruling. 'Namely, that Americans who do not hide their adherence to traditional religious beliefs about homosexual conduct will be 'labeled as bigots and treated as such' by the government,' he wrote. Public support for marriage equality remains at historic highs, though a May Gallup poll showed support among Republicans slipping to 41 percent, the lowest in a decade. In a separate survey conducted by a trio of polling firms in June, 56 percent of Republican respondents said they support same-sex marriage rights.

A former prime minister of Mali is jailed on corruption allegations

time39 minutes ago

A former prime minister of Mali is jailed on corruption allegations

BAMAKO, Mali -- A former prime minister of Mali was jailed Tuesday following allegations of corruption that he has denied, his lawyer told The Associated Press. Choguel Maïga, 67, led the civilian wing of the country's military junta until his November 2024 dismissal days after he criticized it for postponing elections. He has continued to publicly criticize it. His lawyer, Cheick Oumar Konaré, said the Supreme Court had notified the former prime minister of the charges filed against him by Mali's prosecutor general and ordered that he be placed in custody. The charges follow a report by the West African nation's auditor general on the management of public funds while Maïga was prime minister. No trial date has been set. In June, Gen. Assimi Goita was granted an additional five years in power despite the junta's earlier promises of a return to civilian rule by March 2024. The junta dissolved political parties in May.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store