
Supreme Court allows AR-15, high-capacity magazine bans to continue
The U.S. Supreme Court allowed a Maryland ban on AR-15 semiautomatic rifles and a Rhode Island ban on high-capacity magazines to remain in effect by declining two cases challenging the state bans on Monday.
According to Fox News, the cases against Maryland's ban on AR-15 semiautomatic rifles and Rhode Island's ban on high-capacity magazines were appealed to the Supreme Court after lower courts previously upheld the bans. The outlet noted that Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Neil Gorsuch, and Justice Samuel Alito indicated that they would have agreed to review the cases challenging the two state bans.
Fox News reported that the Supreme Court's decision not to review Maryland's ban against AR-15 rifles upholds the previous ruling made by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which claimed that states banning AR-15 rifles did not violate the Second Amendment. According to the outlet, the 4th Circuit claimed that allowing AR-15 rifles to be protected under the Constitution based on the weapon's popularity would potentially allow any weapon to 'gain constitutional protection merely because it becomes popular before the government can sufficiently regulate it.'
READ MORE: New gun law bans some semiautomatic guns in Colorado
In a Monday statement, Justice Brett Kavanaugh explained that states such as Maryland that ban U.S. citizens from owning AR-15 rifles are 'somewhat of an outlier' since 41 of the 50 states allow people to purchase AR-15 rifles.
'In short, under this Court's precedents, the Fourth Circuit's decision is questionable. Although the Court today denies certiorari, a denial of certiorari does not mean that the Court agrees with a lower-court decision or that the issue is not worthy of review,' Kavanaugh wrote. He added, 'Additional petitions for certiorari will likely be before this Court shortly and, in my view, this court should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon, in the next Term of two.'
Thomas expressed his disagreement with the Supreme Court's decision not to review appeals against Maryland and Rhode Island's bans on Monday. Thomas claimed that the Fourth Circuit put 'too high a burden on the challengers to show that the Second Amendment presumptively protected their conduct. And, its determination that AR-15s are dangerous and unusual does not withstand scrutiny.'
'I would not wait to decide whether the government can ban the most popular rifle in America,' Thomas wrote. '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.'
Hashtags

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


Fox News
15 minutes ago
- Fox News
WATCH LIVE: President Trump meets with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz at White House
All times eastern Making Money with Charles Payne FOX News Radio Live Channel Coverage WATCH LIVE: Will Cain reacts to political news of the day with Tim Pool


Fox News
17 minutes ago
- Fox News
Peter Doocy, Jacqui Heinrich share shock over Karine Jean-Pierre ditching Democrats: 'She was wrong'
All times eastern Making Money with Charles Payne FOX News Radio Live Channel Coverage WATCH LIVE: Will Cain reacts to political news of the day with Tim Pool


Axios
18 minutes ago
- Axios
Democrats more likely than Republicans to boycott brands, new survey
Why it matters: These murky expectations highlight the complicated environment businesses are currently operating in. What they're saying: "Businesses need to understand how their brand aligns to current issues and the values that matter to their customer base," says Mallory Newall, vice president at Ipsos. "Brands cannot please everyone, and wading into the political fray does not come without risk. It needs to be done in a strategic way. However, there are potential upsides if companies have a clear understanding of who they're talking to and who their customers are. Those who act inauthentically will lose ground in this environment," she added. State of play: There's a disconnect in what consumers say and what they do. 53% of Americans say they are less likely to buy from a company that takes a stance they don't agree with, but only 30% actually do. Between the lines: A company's political or social stances influence Democrats more than Republicans, per the survey. Democrats are more likely to boycott (40%) than Republicans (24%), but they are also 2x more likely to go out of their way to support a brand that aligns with their values. Target is the latest American corporation to grapple with these boycotts, following its retreat from diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. Of note: Boycotting is a luxury afforded to those with disposable income, per the survey. Households with incomes of $100k and above are 50% more likely to stop buying from a company they disagree with than those households making $50k and below. What to watch: 67% of Democrats say they are closely tracking how companies respond to pending Supreme Court decisions, compared to 52% of Republicans. There is more appetite across party lines for business commentary on economic issues — like inflation and trade policies — than other policy issues. The bottom line: "The data suggest that Democratic consumers are much more likely to actually follow through on the threat to withhold or reduce spending when they disagree with brands during this era of complete GOP control," says Matt House, managing partner at CLYDE.