Supreme Court Turns Away Two Firearms-Related Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal challenging Delawareโ€™s ban on assault-style rifles and large-capacity ammunition magazines, as well as a case regarding Marylandโ€™s handgun licensing requirements.

By doing so, the Court avoided addressing two significant cases involving the contentious issue of gun rights.

The justices turned away an appeal from a group of gun enthusiasts and firearm advocacy organizations, who sought to block Delawareโ€™s ban on โ€œassault weaponsโ€ and magazines capable of holding more than 17 rounds, following a lower courtโ€™s decision not to issue a preliminary injunction.

Reuters noted that such weapons have been used in several mass shootings in the U.S., but according to FBI crime states, the vast majority of gun-related homicides are committed with handguns.

The justices also declined to hear an appeal from the gun rights group Maryland Shall Issue and other plaintiffs, who were challenging a lower courtโ€™s ruling that upheld the stateโ€™s licensing law as consistent with the U.S. Constitutionโ€™s Second Amendment right to keep and bear weapons.

While the justices declined to hear these two cases, the court did not take action on two separate appeals challenging Marylandโ€™s ban on assault weapons and one in Rhode Island regarding large-capacity ammunition magazines.

With its 6-3 conservative majority, the Supreme Court has consistently adopted an originalist interpretation of gun rights in significant rulings dating back to 2008.

Delawareโ€™s gun safety laws, enacted in 2022, ban several semi-automatic โ€œassaultโ€ rifles, including the AR-15 and AK-47, but allow individuals who owned these weapons before the lawโ€™s passage to retain them under specific conditions. The law also prohibits large-capacity magazines, affecting devices owned before its enactment.

The challengers in the case include state residents attempting to purchase the banned firearms or magazines, a firearms dealer, the Firearms Policy Coalition, and the Second Amendment Foundation.

They have said that the lower courts wrongly rejected their argument that a โ€œdeprivation of Second Amendment rights necessarily constitutes an irreparable injury.โ€ A federal judge denied the plaintiffsโ€™ request for an injunction in 2023. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Philadelphia, upheld that decision in 2024.

That 3rd Circuit questioned the plaintiffsโ€™ contention that an injunction is essentially required in the case. โ€œPreliminary injunctions are not automatic,โ€ the 3rd Circuit ruled.

โ€œRather, tradition and precedent have long reserved them for extraordinary situations. We see nothing extraordinary here,โ€ the court added.

Marylandโ€™s 2013 law mandates that most residents obtain a qualification license before purchasing a handgun. This process requires applicants to be fingerprinted, complete training, and undergo background checks.

The challengers argue that the process is too burdensome and that the requirement, which โ€œcan take a month or longerโ€ to complete, discourages people from exercising their Second Amendment rights. Maryland, however, asserts that the fingerprinting and safety course requirements provide โ€œsignificant public safety benefits.โ€ The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Richmond, Virginia, ruled in favor of the state.

In October, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case concerning the legality of a 2022 federal regulation introduced by the Biden administration to target โ€œghost gunsโ€โ€”untraceable firearms that have been increasingly used in crimes. A decision is expected by the end of June.

On March 4, the justices are scheduled to hear arguments in another gun-related case, in which U.S. gun manufacturer Smith & Wesson and firearms wholesaler Interstate Arms are seeking to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Mexico. The lawsuit accuses them of contributing to the illegal trafficking of firearms to Mexican drug cartels.

Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that a federal ban on โ€œbump stockโ€ devices, which allow semiautomatic weapons to fire at a rate similar to machine guns, was unlawful. The justices have also struck down significant gun restrictions in landmark cases in 2008, 2010, and 2022, Reuters noted.


Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *