Latest news with #AR-15s
American Military News
a day ago
- General
- American Military News
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.'
San Francisco Chronicle
2 days ago
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
California gun ban still alive. For now
A divided U.S. Supreme Court on Monday allowed states to continue to ban semiautomatic AR-15-style rifles, which can be fired repeatedly without reloading and are owned by millions of Americans. But the issue is far from settled. Only two of the nine justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, dissented from the court's decision to deny review of a federal appeals court ruling in September that upheld Maryland's AR-15 ban, similar to laws in California and seven other states. But Justice Brett Kavanaugh, another member of the court's conservative majority, said in a separate opinion that the appeals court ruling was 'questionable' and the Supreme Court 'should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon.' Thomas, in a dissent joined by Alito, said tens of millions of Americans own AR-15s, and an 'overwhelming majority … do so for lawful purposes.' And in a separate case, the court denied a challenge to a Rhode Island law, similar to California's, that bans possession of gun magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Justices Thomas, Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented. The actions reflect the uncertain status of gun-control laws since the court's 6-3 ruling in 2022 that said Americans have a constitutional right to carry concealed firearms in public. Thomas, in the majority opinion, said any restrictions on owning or carrying guns could be upheld only if they were 'consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearms regulation,' dating back to the nation's founding. Based on that ruling, many state gun laws have been overturned, and California has narrowed, though not repealed, its restrictions on carrying guns in public. But the Supreme Court appeared to move in a different direction last June when it ruled 8-1, with only Thomas dissenting, that the government could ban gun ownership by domestic abusers who have attacked or threatened someone in their household. It was the court's first direct ruling on guns since 2022. Kavanaugh's opinion suggested that reviewing bans on semiautomatics or other widely used weapons may be next for the court, despite Monday's denial. 'We are disappointed that some members of the Supreme Court did not have the judicial courage to do their most important job and enforce the Constitution,' said the Firearms Policy Coalition, a gun-advocacy nonprofit based in Sacramento. 'We are more resolved than ever to fight forward and eliminate these immoral bans throughout the nation, whatever and however long it takes.' The group urged the Trump administration to join a future legal challenge. The administration did not file arguments in the Maryland case, but President Donald Trump issued an executive order in February directing Attorney General Pam Bondi to review all firearms policies of President Joe Biden's administration and 'protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.' David Pucino, legal director of the San Francisco-based Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, was relieved by Monday's Supreme Court action. 'Courts have repeatedly upheld laws limiting access to highly dangerous weapons,' Pucino said in a statement. 'They are proven measures that protect families and reduce gun violence.' The court left intact a 9-5 ruling in September by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia upholding Maryland's AR-15 ban. The appeals court had rejected a challenge to the law in 2017, then was ordered by the Supreme Court to reconsider it under the standards of the 2022 ruling. The semiautomatic rifles are 'military-style weapons designed for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense,' Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, wrote in the appeals court's majority opinion. A California appeals court gave similar reasons in 2023 for upholding the state's ban on many AR-15-style rifles, which has also been allowed to stand by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Under California's ban, semiautomatic rifles with fixed ammunition magazines — bullet chambers that require disassembly of the firearm to swap them out — can't hold more than 10 rounds. Those with detachable magazines, which enable swift reloading, can't have any of a number of additional features, such as pistol grips. In other states, the weapons are sometimes sold with forced-reset triggers, which pull the trigger back after each shot, allowing rapid refiring. Trump's Justice Department agreed last month to allow their sale under federal law, withdrawing the government's previous classification of the weapons as illegal machine guns. But California Attorney General Rob Bonta said Monday he has notified law enforcement agencies that the triggers are still prohibited by state law. In dissent from the 4th Circuit ruling, Judge Julius Richardson, a Trump appointee, said 20% of all firearms sold in the United States are AR-15s. 'Maryland's ban cannot pass constitutional muster as it prohibits the possession of arms commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,' Richardson said. Maryland's law contains similar restrictions to those in the California ban. It also limits some features and bans semiautomatic rifles that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The Maryland case is Snope v. Brown, 24-203. The Rhode Island case is Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island, 24-131.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
New bill would help property owners in Illinois evict squatters
(NewsNation) — A bill in Illinois awaiting the governor's signature would give property owners more assistance when evicting squatters from their properties. Senate Bill 1563, if signed into law, would let the police remove squatters from someone's property on the spot as long as the rightful owner can prove the property is theirs. The law previously allowed squatters to stay on the property and let homeowners take up the issue in eviction court. Democratic state Rep. La Shawn Ford, a co-sponsor of the bill, said the current law is bad for everyone involved. Kavanaugh signals Supreme Court will soon decide constitutionality of banning AR-15s 'It's dangerous for landlords, it's dangerous for the squatters because Illinois is a concealed carry state, and people are using their weapons to get people out of their properties,' Ford said. Ford said the new law would classify squatters as trespassers, allowing the police to arrest them and bypass the eviction process typically associated with squatters' rights. He added the people who are living in properties illegally are 'crooks who know how to game the system.' 'It's critical because we have people that have spent thousands of dollars in eviction court paying lawyers to get a trespasser out,' Ford said. 'We've had people in Illinois give $10,000 to a trespasser just to move them out of the property, only to find the damage they left behind was going to cost even more money.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Supreme Court declines to examine appeals over Maryland, Rhode Island gun control laws
The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear two cases challenging separate state bans on so-called assault weapons and high-capacity magazines on Monday. The court declined to hear cases arising out of Maryland and Rhode Island relating to state regulations on AR-15-style rifles and high-capacity magazines, respectively. The cases had been submitted to the Supreme Court after lower courts upheld the bans in the face of challenges. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch disagreed with the majority's decision and said they would have liked to have reviewed the cases. With respect to the Maryland ban, the Supreme Court's decision upholds the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling, which states that authority to ban AR-15-style rifles is consistent with the 2nd Amendment. Trump Denounces Court's 'Political' Tariff Decision, Calls On Supreme Court To Act Quickly The 4th Circuit argued in its ruling that granting AR-15s constitutional protection based on their common use would mean that any dangerous weapon "could gain constitutional protection merely because it becomes popular before the government can sufficiently regulate it." Read On The Fox News App Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court To Review El Salvador Deportation Flight Case Lawyers arguing against the ban claimed the Supreme Court had a duty to "ensure that the Second Amendment itself is not truncated into a limited right to own certain state-approved means of personal self-defense." While the court declined to take up the issue in this case, Justice Brett Kavanaugh stated that, "In my view, this Court should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon." Thomas, one of the three justices who sought to review the Maryland case now, was more blunt in his dissent. "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." The gun cases come as the Supreme Court has been inundated with challenges to President Donald Trump's agenda, from his economic and regulatory policies to his anti-illegal immigration efforts. The Supreme Court is expected to hand down rulings relating to several of these topics in the coming article source: Supreme Court declines to examine appeals over Maryland, Rhode Island gun control laws
Yahoo
2 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Supreme Court Finally Does Something Good on Guns—for Now
On Monday, the Supreme refused to hear two significant cases challenging Maryland's state-wide ban on semiautomatic rifles and other assault-style weapons like AR-15s. The court's rejection of the cases, a somewhat surprising move for the conservative majority, means that the gun control law will stay in place—for now. The court also refused to hear a challenge to Rhode Island's restrictions on high-capacity magazines. Four Supreme Court justices are needed to hear a case. Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Samuel Alito wrote a dissenting opinion on the Maryland case, arguing that it wasn't consistent with the Supreme Court's conservative 2022 ruling that the right to bear arms extends outside the home, which loosened gun restrictions and caused states like Maryland and Rhode Island to enact bans like the ones being challenged in court. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the other conservative justice, wrote his own dissenting statement, calling the Maryland ban an 'outlier' and positing ominously that 'this court should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon.'
