The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review challenges to Maryland and Rhode Island's firearm laws. As debates intensify over Second Amendment protections, the court has left the battle between public safety concerns and the right to bear arms as unresolved as ever. Let’s rewind.
Mass Shootings Make Waves
Over the past few decades, the United States has seen an increase in the number and severity of mass shootings. Many of these tragic events involved the use of assault rifles. Sandy Hook made waves with its 27 victims, but that was thirteen years ago. Many more mass shootings have happened since, like the 2015 incident by a couple in San Bernardino, California which took 14 lives, the 2016 Florida nightclub shooting that took 49, and the largest mass shooting in the country’s history to date, the 2017 Las Vegas massacre that took 60 lives at a music festival. Countless other dark examples abound.
Assault rifles have been used in many mass shootings, resulting in a high number of fatalities. These weapons are known for their destructive power. In 1994, Congress banned semiautomatic assault weapons due to their involvement in shootings where many people were killed or injured. This ban lasted until 2004.
Maryland Reacts to Mass Shootings
It wasn’t just the federal government that was concerned. Following the Sandy Hook shooting, state legislatures and the District of Columbia also enacted similar bans aimed at reducing the number of deaths and injuries from mass shootings. Among them was Maryland.
Maryland's law specifically prohibits certain types of assault rifles and firearms with specific features, like folding stocks and flash suppressors. If someone breaks this law, they could be imprisoned for up to three years. Police in Maryland can take away and dispose of any newly made or owned guns that violate this law. However, people who owned these weapons before the ban can keep them, and there are other exceptions. Moreover, Maryland residents still have access to a wide range of legal firearms for self-defense.
The law defines "assault weapons" as including three main categories: assault long guns, assault pistols, and copycat weapons. Assault long guns are a list of over forty-five specific types of rifles and shotguns, like the AK-47 and AR-15, which can fire automatically. Assault pistols are a list of more than fifteen specific types of pistols, such as the TEC-9. Copycat weapons are guns that meet certain criteria, like having a detachable magazine and other features that make them similar to assault weapons.
Plaintiffs Sue Maryland Over Gun Law
The law affected some people more than others. Maryland residents who were legally eligible to possess and acquire firearms, nonprofit gun rights organizations, and licensed firearms dealers were some categories of people who were negatively affected by the regulation. These groups banded together to sue the state, claiming that Maryland's law violates their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. They asked a federal court to declare the law unconstitutional and stop officials from enforcing it.
The defendants, Maryland officials, pointed out that the plaintiff’s argument went against a previous decision in a case called Kolbe v. Hogan, where the same Maryland law was upheld by the Fourth Circuit. In Kolbe, the court decided that the Second Amendment does not protect the assault weapons banned by Maryland because they are similar to military weapons. The court also held that even if the Second Amendment did apply to such weapons, Maryland's law would still be constitutional under intermediate scrutiny.
The plaintiffs even admitted that their arguments defied Kolbe, but asked the district court to overrule the precedent. The district court declined to do so and dismissed the case, saying that Kolbe controlled. The plaintiffs then appealed to the very court that decided Kolbe. Unsurprisingly, the Fourth Circuit declined to undo their previous ruling, but the reasons were more than mere pride.
Bruen Trumps Kolbe
The first problem with potentially overruling Kolbe was that the original decision was an en banc decision, meaning it was decided by the full court rather than a smaller panel. A panel of the court is not authorized to overturn or reconsider an en banc holding. Only the full court sitting en banc or the Supreme Court can overturn such a decision. Since the panel hearing the present case with the current plaintiffs was not the full court, they’re not authorized to revisit Kolbe.
But it gets more complicated. The Fourth Circuit pointed out that there’s been a new case on the block since Kolbe, one you might have heard of: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. You can read more about the details of that case here. In short, SCOTUS held that when the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the government must demonstrate that its regulation is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.
Fourth Circuit Upholds Gun Ban
As the Fourth Circuit pointed out, SCOTUS’s Bruen decision abrogated Kolbe's reasoning, particularly its reliance on means-end scrutiny, which is no longer applicable. Applying Brien, the court concluded that the banned military-style "assault weapons" were not within the scope of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. These weapons fall outside the scope of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms for self-defense because they are military-style weapons designed for combat operations, not appropriate for self-defense.
Additionally, the court found that Maryland's law is consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation, which has long allowed for the regulation of excessively dangerous weapons. The court emphasized that the regulation is a proper exercise of Maryland's police powers to address the threats posed by these weapons while still preserving the core right of citizens to defend themselves with arms.
SCOTUS Declines to Intervene
Ultimately, the case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, where it was combined with a similar case from the First Circuit, called Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island. That lawsuit challenged Rhode Island’s ban on large-capacity magazines, defined as those holding over 10 rounds. You can read more about the Rhode Island case here.
SCOTUS is pretty picky about which cases it decides to take up, and this is all the more so when issues are as divisive as gun rights. The threshold question of whether or not they would even take the case up was debated at 15 consecutive conferences. Earlier this week, SCOTUS finally declined, leaving the challengers one vote short of the four needed for the court to take up the cases.
Despite the Fourth Circuit's decision, three justices—Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas—expressed their willingness to grant the petition for review. Justice Brett Kavanaugh also penned a brief statement, suggesting that the challengers have a pretty good argument: AR-15s are in "common use" by law-abiding citizens, so they should be protected by the Second Amendment. He noted that the Fourth Circuit's decision is questionable under the Supreme Court's precedents and hinted that the court might address the issue soon.
Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the denial of review, arguing that AR-15s do not fall within the historic exception for dangerous and unusual weapons because they are the most popular civilian rifle in the United States. He emphasized that the Maryland law can only be upheld if the state can show that its ban is consistent with the country's historical tradition of gun regulation, which he believes it does not.
For now, the laws remain in effect in Maryland and Rhode Island. While the case has ended, the broader legal debate over firearm regulations and the scope of the Second Amendment may continue to evolve in subsequent litigation.
Related Resources:
- Is an Assault Weapons Ban Even Possible? (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
- SCOTUS Upholds Ghost Gun Regulations (FindLaw's Federal Courts)
- Supreme Court Denies Challenge to Law Prohibiting Guns for People Under Restraining Orders (FindLaw's Federal Courts)
