Justice Clarence Thomas delivers a blistering critique as the Supreme Court declines to hear a case on AR-15 bans, potentially leaving millions of American gun owners vulnerable to future government restrictions.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court has declined to review Maryland’s ban on AR-15 rifles, despite these firearms being legally owned in 41 states across America.
- Justice Thomas, joined by Justices Alito and Gorsuch, strongly criticized the Court’s decision to avoid ruling on whether the government can ban “the most popular rifle in America.”
- Justice Kavanaugh suggested the Court will likely address the AR-15 issue “in the next Term or two,” acknowledging that the weapons are in “common use” by law-abiding citizens.
- The decision leaves in place a Fourth Circuit Court ruling that AR-15s are not protected “arms” under the Second Amendment, a conclusion Thomas called “dubious.”
- Thomas warned that without Supreme Court protection, AR-15 owners must rely on federal agencies’ discretion rather than constitutional guarantees for their rights.
Supreme Court Declines Critical Second Amendment Case
In a move that has alarmed Second Amendment advocates nationwide, the Supreme Court has declined to review a challenge to Maryland’s ban on AR-15 rifles and similar firearms. The case, Snope v. Brown, presented a critical opportunity for the Court to determine whether states can prohibit ownership of the most popular rifle in America, a weapon legally owned by tens of millions of citizens across the country. By refusing to hear the case, the Court has allowed a controversial Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling to stand, which declared that AR-15s are not protected “arms” under the Second Amendment – a decision that directly contradicts the rights of gun owners in 41 states where such firearms remain legal.
The Court’s refusal to take up the case was not unanimous. Three conservative justices – Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch – expressed a strong desire to hear the challenge immediately. In their view, the constitutional questions at stake are too important to defer, especially considering that an estimated 20 to 30 million Americans currently own AR-15s. The Fourth Circuit’s ruling effectively creates a dangerous precedent suggesting that widely-owned firearms used primarily for lawful purposes can be banned outright if a handful of states deem them too dangerous, regardless of their prevalence and legitimate use throughout most of the country.
Justice Thomas Leads Forceful Dissent
Justice Clarence Thomas authored a particularly pointed dissent, criticizing both the Court’s reluctance to address this vital Second Amendment question and the Fourth Circuit’s reasoning. His dissent highlighted the urgency of resolving whether governments can ban weapons that are demonstrably in common use across the nation. Thomas emphasized that the Court has been avoiding this critical constitutional question for an entire decade, leaving millions of law-abiding gun owners in legal uncertainty while anti-gun states continue to implement restrictions that appear to directly contradict Supreme Court precedents.
“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,” Said Justice Clarence Thomas, Supreme Court Justice.
Thomas specifically challenged the Fourth Circuit’s classification of AR-15s as outside Second Amendment protection, noting that these firearms “appear to fit neatly within that category of protected arms.” He pointed out that the overwhelming majority of AR-15 owners use them for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. The justice warned that without Supreme Court intervention, the constitutional rights of millions of Americans remain at the mercy of government agencies rather than being secured by proper constitutional interpretation, leaving gun owners vulnerable to shifting political winds.
Kavanaugh Signals Future Consideration
While agreeing with the Court’s decision not to take the case at this time, Justice Brett Kavanaugh offered a perspective that provided some hope to Second Amendment advocates. In his view, the Court “should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon, in the next Term or two.” This suggests that the Court may be waiting for additional circuit court rulings on similar cases before making a definitive nationwide determination. Kavanaugh’s statement acknowledges the constitutional significance of the issue while indicating that a resolution may be forthcoming in the relatively near future.
“Given that millions of Americans own AR–15s and that a significant majority of the States allow possession of those rifles, petitioners have a strong argument that AR–15s are in ‘common use’ by law-abiding citizens and therefore are protected by the Second Amendment under Heller,” Said Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Supreme Court Justice.
Kavanaugh directly questioned the Fourth Circuit’s conclusion, describing it as “questionable” under the Supreme Court’s precedents established in District of Columbia v. Heller. He noted that the “common use” standard outlined in Heller strongly suggests that AR-15s should receive constitutional protection, given their widespread lawful ownership across the nation. The justice’s comments indicate that while the Court may not be ready to rule on the issue immediately, there appears to be significant support for eventually recognizing AR-15s as constitutionally protected firearms.
Implications for Gun Owners Nationwide
The Supreme Court’s decision to pass on this case has immediate implications for gun owners in Maryland and other states with similar bans, including California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Washington state. In these jurisdictions, law-abiding citizens remain unable to legally purchase or possess AR-15s and similar firearms, despite their widespread lawful use throughout most of the country. More concerning, however, is Thomas’s warning about potential future actions by federal agencies like the ATF, which could attempt to reclassify AR-15s as machine guns, dramatically expanding restrictions nationwide.
For now, gun rights advocates must await another case that might provide the Supreme Court with an opportunity to definitively rule on whether the Second Amendment protects AR-15s and similar firearms. With Kavanaugh suggesting such a case could be heard within the next two terms, the constitutional status of America’s most popular rifle remains uncertain but may see resolution in the relatively near future. In the meantime, the patchwork of state laws continues, with American gun owners’ rights varying dramatically depending on which state they call home.
