The Supreme Court’s Silence on AR-15s Signals a State-by-State Battle for Gun Rights
More AR-style rifles exist in the United States than Ford F-Series trucks – a statistic that underscores the sheer scale of civilian ownership and the complex legal battle surrounding these firearms. On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to bans on semiautomatic rifles in Maryland, California, and eight other states, a move that, while not a definitive ruling, dramatically clarifies the near-term landscape: the fight over these weapons will largely play out at the state level, at least for now.
Kavanaugh’s Key Role and the Looming Confrontation
The Court’s decision wasn’t unanimous. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented, signaling a willingness to revisit the Second Amendment’s application to these weapons. However, Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s vote proved pivotal. While calling the lower court’s ruling upholding Maryland’s ban “questionable,” he opted to defer a full hearing, stating he believes the Court “should and presumably will address the AR–15 issue soon, in the next Term or two.” This suggests Kavanaugh isn’t opposed to eventually taking up the issue, but wants to see how lower courts continue to rule and potentially allow the legal arguments to further mature.
The “Common Use” Argument and Historical Context
At the heart of the debate lies the interpretation of the Second Amendment’s protection of “arms.” Gun rights advocates argue that the AR-15 and similar rifles are “in common use by law-abiding citizens,” a key criterion established in previous Supreme Court cases. They point to the estimated 28 million AR-style rifles currently in circulation. However, states defending their bans counter that the Second Amendment isn’t absolute and that restrictions on dangerous weapons are historically consistent with the nation’s legal tradition. This echoes arguments made regarding restrictions on gunpowder, dynamite, and machine guns – new regulations arising in response to evolving threats.
A Patchwork of Laws and the Potential for Divergence
The Supreme Court’s inaction leaves in place bans in states like California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Washington. These laws typically prohibit the sale and possession of “assault weapons” and large-capacity magazines. This creates a stark divide across the country, with some states offering broad access to these firearms and others severely restricting them. This divergence is likely to intensify, leading to a complex legal landscape for gun owners traveling between states and potentially fueling legal challenges based on interstate commerce concerns.
The Role of Mass Shootings in Shaping Legislation
Many of these bans were enacted in the wake of tragic mass shootings, such as the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Lawmakers in these states argue that the rapid-fire capabilities of these weapons make them particularly dangerous in public spaces. Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, in upholding Maryland’s ban, explicitly linked these rifles to “mass killing and terrorist attacks.” This connection between tragedy and legislation is likely to continue driving the debate, making compromise increasingly difficult.
Looking Ahead: What to Expect in the Next Few Years
The Supreme Court’s eventual consideration of the AR-15 issue seems almost inevitable, given Kavanaugh’s statement and the continued pressure from both sides of the debate. However, the outcome remains uncertain. The Court’s conservative majority could choose to reaffirm the right to own these weapons, potentially striking down state bans. Alternatively, they could uphold the lower court rulings, granting states broad authority to regulate firearms based on public safety concerns. A key factor will be how the Court weighs the historical context of gun regulations against the modern realities of mass shootings and the widespread availability of these weapons.
Furthermore, the composition of the Court itself could change in the coming years, further complicating the equation. The legal battles will likely extend beyond AR-15s to include other types of semiautomatic rifles and high-capacity magazines, creating a prolonged period of legal uncertainty for gun owners and policymakers alike. The future of gun control in America is, for now, being decided not in Washington D.C., but in state capitals across the nation.
What are your predictions for the future of AR-15 regulations? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
