Latest news with #AR–15
Yahoo
3 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Supreme Court lets stand Maryland's assault weapons ban — for now
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.'
Yahoo
3 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
RI's high-capacity magazine ban survives legal challenge
WASHINGTON (WPRI/AP) — A split Supreme Court on Monday rejected a pair of gun rights cases, though one conservative justice predicted the court would soon consider whether assault weapons bans are constitutional. The majority did not explain its reasoning in turning down the cases over high-capacity magazines and state bans on guns like the AR-15, popular weapons that have also been used in mass shootings. But three conservative justices on the nine-member court publicly noted their disagreement, and a fourth said he is skeptical that assault-weapons bans are constitutional. Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch said they would have taken a case challenging Maryland's ban, and Justice Clarence Thomas wrote separately to say the law likely runs afoul of the Second Amendment. '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.' Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed with the decision to pass on the case now but indicated that he is skeptical such bans are constitutional and that he expects the court will address the issue 'in the next term or two.' The Maryland law was passed after the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut that killed 20 children and six adults. The shooter was armed with an AR-15, one of the firearms commonly referred to as an assault weapon. Several states have similar measures, and congressional Democrats have also supported the concept. The challengers had argued that people have a constitutional right to own the firearms like the AR-15, which most gun owners use legally. The case comes nearly three years after the high court handed down a landmark ruling that expanded Second Amendment rights and spawned challenges to firearm laws around the country. Ten states and the District of Columbia have similar laws, covering major cities like New York and Los Angeles. Congress allowed a national assault weapons ban to expire in 2004. The gun control group Everytown Law applauded the high court's action, saying the measures make communities safer. 'We will fight to ensure the courts continue to uphold these life-saving laws,' said Janet Carter, managing director of Second Amendment litigation. More than twice as many people died in mass shootings in which large-capacity magazines and assault weapons were used between 2015 and 2022, the group said. Attorneys for Maryland argued the guns aren't protected by the Constitution because they're similar to military-grade weapons. The law bans dozens of firearms — including the AR-15, the AK-47 and the Barrett .50-caliber sniper rifle — and puts a 10-round limit on gun magazines. The gun rights group Second Amendment Foundation said it has seven other cases challenging the bans and plans to continue to 'aggressively litigate' them. 'Millions of Americans continue to be disenfranchised from exercising their complete Second Amendment rights by virtue of these categorical bans,' Executive Director Adam Kraut said. The high court also rebuffed a bid to overturn state bans on high-capacity gun magazines in a case out of Rhode Island. Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch said they would have heard the case. More than a dozen states have similar laws limiting the amount of ammunition a magazine can hold. Thomas and Kavanaugh have previously expressed skepticism about assault weapon bans. As an appeals court judge in 2011, Kavanaugh wrote a dissent saying that a similar measure in Washington, D.C., was unconstitutional. Thomas, meanwhile, dissented in 2015 when the Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to a municipal ban on AR-15-style weapons, writing that the 'overwhelming majority' of people who owned the weapons used them for lawful purposes like self-defense. The high court in 2022 handed down a ruling that expanded gun rights and told lower-court judges they should no longer consider factors like public safety in deciding whether firearm laws are constitutional. Instead, they should focus on whether a law fits into the nation's historic tradition of gun ownership, the court said. That led to a flurry of challenges to gun laws around the country, multiple restrictions struck down, and confusion among lower-court judges over what gun laws can stay on the books. Since then, the Supreme Court has overturned a ban on rapid-fire gun accessories called bump stocks but upheld a law barring people under domestic-violence restraining orders from having guns and regulations on nearly untraceable ghost guns. Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha said in a statement he's grateful the Supreme Court did not overturn the high-capacity magazine ban. 'My office has always fought to ensure that we have common sense gun laws on the books to keep Rhode Islanders safe,' Neronha said, adding that the Supreme Court's decision allows his office to 'continue that mission without interruption.' 'The law in question, the state's ban on possession of large-capacity magazines, as well as other gun safety laws are working – and working well – to prevent gun deaths and hold accountable those who commit gun crimes,' he continued. 'Just last year, my office charged more than 300 cases involving large-capacity magazines of 11 rounds or higher, undoubtedly preventing and deterring gun violence in the process.' Neronha said he hopes this will inspire state lawmakers to pass the proposed assault-style weapons ban, which the Rhode Island General Assembly will be voting on Tuesday. 'Every life has meaning – every person has hopes, dreams, family, and friends, all of which shatter when we lose someone to gun violence,' Neronha said. 'One life lost to gun violence is one too many.' Download the and apps to get breaking news and weather alerts. Watch or with the new . Follow us on social media: Close Thanks for signing up! Watch for us in your inbox. Subscribe Now Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Newsweek
3 days ago
- Politics
- Newsweek
Clarence Thomas Wants Supreme Court to Decide Issue It's Avoided for Decade
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Justice Clarence Thomas broke from the Supreme Court's denial to hear a case about whether government bans of AR-15s are allowed under the Second Amendment, arguing that the Court has avoided the decision "for a full decade." "I would not wait to decide whether the government can ban the most popular rifle in America," Thomas wrote in the dissent published Monday. "That question is of critical importance to tens of millions of law-abiding AR–15 owners throughout the country." Why It Matters The Court decided not to hear David Snope, et al. v. Anthony G. Brown, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Maryland, et al. Maryland prohibits ownership of AR-15s, and the case challenged whether this ban is permitted under the Second Amendment. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that AR-15s are not "arms" protected by the Second Amendment. Thomas said he would have agreed to hear the case to review this "surprising conclusion." Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch also would have agreed to hear the case, according to the Court's order. What To Know Thomas argued that AR-15s fit the definition of "arms" under the Second Amendment. Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas listens to President Donald Trump speak before swearing in Pam Bondi as Attorney General in the Oval Office of the White House, Wednesday, Feb. 5, 2025, in Washington. Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas listens to President Donald Trump speak before swearing in Pam Bondi as Attorney General in the Oval Office of the White House, Wednesday, Feb. 5, 2025, in Washington. AP Photo/Evan Vucci "AR–15s appear to fit neatly within that category of protected arms," Thomas wrote. "Tens of millions of Americans own AR–15s, and the 'overwhelming majority' of them 'do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting.'" He called the Fourth Circuit's reasoning "dubious at least twice over." Thomas said that the constitutional status of AR-15s is "all the urgent" following a recent Court decision on ghost guns. The Court ruled that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is permitted to regulate some weapon parts kits and unfinished frames or receivers under the Gun Control Act. "On the Court's logic, it seems that ATF could at any time declare AR–15s to be machineguns prohibited by federal law," Thomas wrote. Thomas said this leaves AR-15 owners dependent on the "goodwill" of a federal agency to maintain a right to self-defense. "That is 'no constitutional guarantee at all,'" Thomas said. Justice Brett Kavanaugh also released a statement respecting the denial to hear the case. He called the Fourth Circuit's decision "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. What People Are Saying Thomas, in a dissent: "I doubt we would sit idly by if lower courts were to so subvert our precedents involving any other constitutional right. Until we are vigilant in enforcing it, the right to bear arms will remain 'a second-class right.'" Kavanaugh, in a statement respecting the denial: "In my view, this Court should and presumably will address the AR–15 issue soon, in the next Term or two." What Happens Next With the Court's denial to hear the case, the Fourth Circuit's decision remains in effect. Do you have a story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have any questions about this story? Contact LiveNews@
Yahoo
3 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Supreme Court declines AR-15 ban appeal that Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch would've taken
The Supreme Court refused to take up what would've been its next big gun case on Monday, declining to weigh in on Maryland's ban on certain so-called assault weapons. But three justices objected and a fourth wrote that the court 'should and presumably will address the AR–15 issue soon, in the next Term or two.' That unusually specific statement came from Justice Brett Kavanaugh. He didn't go as far as his three Republican-appointed colleagues, who said they wanted to decide the matter now. Those three justices are Clarence Thomas, who wrote an eight-page dissent, and Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, who simply noted their preference to have taken the case. The denial came on the court's routine order list, which publicizes the latest action in pending appeals. It takes four justices to grant review. So why didn't Kavanaugh provide that fourth vote? After all, he deemed 'questionable' the federal appeals court ruling that the justices declined to review, primarily concerning Maryland's ban on the semi-automatic rifle. But in his statement Monday, the Trump appointee noted that the issue is being reviewed by several other appeals courts, and that those courts' forthcoming decisions 'should assist this Court's ultimate decisionmaking on the AR–15 issue.' He concluded that more petitions will likely come to the justices 'shortly' and that the court 'should and presumably will address the AR–15 issue soon, in the next Term or two.' That's a formally plausible position, but it might not be the whole story. Again, we have four justices interested in taking up what they see as an important issue. Even if they had granted review in this appeal Monday, that wouldn't have teed up a decision until next term and likely not coming until a year from now. So, why put it off if all four think that depriving people of these particular weapons is violating their constitutional rights in the meantime? Kavanaugh's punt all but guarantees continued deprivations (in their view) for at least another year or more (per his timeline). It could have something to do with simple Supreme Court math and the unknowns of what the other two GOP appointees, Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts, would do. That is, there's a difference between getting four justices to agree to review an appeal on the one hand, and forming a majority to rule the way those four justices want to on the other. To be sure, Barrett and Roberts were in the majority for Thomas' 6-3 ruling in the Bruen case in 2022 that brought Second Amendment rights outside the home. More recently, all of Thomas' colleagues split from him in the 2024 Rahimi case, in which the justices voted 8-1 in favor of temporarily disarming people who pose credible threats for domestic violence. Monday's rejection of the appeal of the AR-15 ban shows that the Bruen band isn't quite ready to get back together on this one, or at least that Kavanaugh is worried what Barrett, Roberts or both might do. But given the closeness of the latest vote and the specificity of Kavanaugh's statement, we'll be watching his urgent prediction — which is to say, we'll be watching those other two justices. For now, the high court's decision to stay out of it leaves intact the divided appeals court ruling that Kavanaugh deemed questionable. The appellate judges in the majority said the Maryland ban complies with Bruen and that they declined 'to wield the Constitution to declare that military-style armaments which have become primary instruments of mass killing and terrorist attacks in the United States are beyond the reach of our nation's democratic processes.' Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration's legal cases. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
3 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Kavanaugh signals Supreme Court will soon decide constitutionality of banning AR-15s
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a case that involves whether possessing AR-15's 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 flash point 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 year prior. 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 it 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. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
