Supreme Court Turns Away Two Firearms-Related Cases
The U.S. Supreme Court has opted not to review an appeal challenging Delaware’s prohibition on assault-style rifles and large-capacity ammunition magazines, as well as a case concerning Maryland’s handgun licensing regulations.
By declining these cases, the Court steered clear of weighing in on two pivotal issues in the ongoing debate over gun rights.
The justices rejected an appeal from a coalition of gun rights advocates and firearm enthusiasts who sought to overturn Delaware’s ban on “assault weapons” and magazines holding more than 17 rounds. This appeal followed a lower court’s refusal to grant a preliminary injunction against the law.
According to Reuters, these types of firearms have been used in numerous mass shootings across the U.S. However, FBI crime data indicates that handguns are responsible for the vast majority of firearm-related homicides.
The Supreme Court also declined to hear an appeal from the gun rights organization Maryland Shall Issue, along with other plaintiffs, challenging a lower court’s decision upholding Maryland’s handgun licensing law. The court ruled that the regulation aligns with the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms.
While the justices dismissed these cases, they have not yet ruled on separate appeals involving Maryland’s ban on assault weapons or Rhode Island’s restrictions on large-capacity magazines.
With a 6-3 conservative majority, the Supreme Court has consistently applied an originalist interpretation of the Second Amendment in major gun-related rulings dating back to 2008.
Delaware’s gun control legislation, enacted in 2022, bans various semi-automatic “assault” rifles, such as the AR-15 and AK-47. However, individuals who owned these firearms prior to the law’s passage may keep them under certain conditions. The legislation also outlaws large-capacity magazines, including those already owned before the law took effect.
The plaintiffs in the Delaware case include state residents seeking to purchase the prohibited firearms or magazines, a firearms dealer, the Firearms Policy Coalition, and the Second Amendment Foundation. They argue that the lower courts erred in rejecting their claim that a “deprivation of Second Amendment rights necessarily constitutes an irreparable injury.”
A federal judge denied their request for an injunction in 2023, and the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia upheld that ruling in 2024. The 3rd Circuit questioned the argument that an injunction should be automatic in this context. “Preliminary injunctions are not automatic,” the court stated.
“Rather, tradition and precedent have long reserved them for extraordinary situations. We see nothing extraordinary here,” the ruling added.
Maryland’s 2013 law requires most residents to obtain a qualification license before purchasing a handgun. The process involves fingerprinting, training completion, and background checks.
Opponents of the law contend that these requirements are excessively restrictive and that the process, which “can take a month or longer,” discourages individuals from exercising their Second Amendment rights. However, Maryland defends the regulation, arguing that the fingerprinting and safety training requirements offer “significant public safety benefits.” The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Richmond, Virginia, upheld the law.
In October, the Supreme Court heard arguments regarding the Biden administration’s 2022 federal regulation on “ghost guns”—untraceable firearms increasingly linked to criminal activity. A decision on that case is expected by the end of June.
Additionally, on March 4, the Court is set to hear arguments in another firearm-related case involving gun manufacturer Smith & Wesson and wholesaler Interstate Arms. The companies are seeking to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Mexico, which alleges that they facilitated the illegal trafficking of firearms to Mexican drug cartels.
In a previous ruling, the Supreme Court determined that a federal prohibition on “bump stocks,” which enable semi-automatic firearms to mimic fully automatic fire, was unlawful. The justices have also struck down significant gun control measures in landmark decisions from 2008, 2010, and 2022, as reported by Reuters.