Possible Supreme Court’s 5-4 Split? The Uncertain Fate of Assault Weapon Bans

The fate of assault weapon and magazine bans in the United States may soon rest in the hands of the Supreme Court. Two major Second Amendment cases – Snope v. Brown and Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island – have quietly become some of the most closely watched legal battles in the country.

At the heart of both is a single, powerful question: can the government lawfully ban firearms and magazines that are commonly owned and widely used for self-defense? Despite months of deliberation, the Supreme Court has yet to announce whether it will take up either case, leaving millions of gun owners, constitutional scholars, and legal analysts in a state of uneasy suspense.

Two Cases, One Constitutional Crisis

Snope v. Brown challenges Maryland’s ban on commonly owned semiautomatic rifles. Ocean State Tactical addresses Rhode Island’s magazine ban. These cases go beyond just legal technicalities – they represent a direct challenge to the scope of the Second Amendment. According to William of Copper Jacket TV, these are “two of the most important Second Amendment cases currently sitting before the Supreme Court,” with major implications for gun owners across the country. What’s at stake is more than just a few state laws – it’s the fundamental definition of what Americans can own and carry.

Delays and Denials: A Frustrating Pattern

Both William Kirk of Washington Gun Law and William have voiced frustration with the repeated delays. As William noted in his video, “These cases have been conferenced nine times and rescheduled once each.” If the Court was going to deny these petitions outright, many believe it would’ve done so long ago – especially considering more than a thousand other cases have already been trimmed from the docket. The fact that these two have remained is either a promising sign – or a sign of deeper uncertainty among the justices.

A Rare but Possible Outcome: The Per Curiam Ruling

Kirk did float one rare possibility: a unanimous per curiam opinion, where the Court issues a short, unsigned ruling that overturns the lower court without a full hearing. This is how the Court handled Caetano v. Massachusetts, striking down a stun gun ban. But Kirk dismissed the idea of a per curiam opinion in this case, saying, “It’ll be a cold day in hell before that happens” with something as polarizing as assault weapons. The more realistic outcome? A full hearing with oral arguments – if the Court even agrees to take the case.

The Political Math: A 5-4 Possibility

Kirk breaks down the ideological layout of the Court in simple, worrying terms. He believes Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson are almost guaranteed to vote in favor of upholding the bans. On the other side, Justices Thomas, Alito, and likely Kavanaugh are expected to oppose them. Gorsuch is the wild card – some gun rights advocates are still uneasy after his majority opinion in the Vanderstock case, but Kirk argues that case hinged on statutory interpretation, not constitutional principle. If Gorsuch sides with the pro-2A camp, that makes four. That leaves Justice Barrett and Chief Justice Roberts holding the balance of power.

Barrett and Roberts: The Swing Votes

Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s position is murky. While her lower court writings show support for the Second Amendment, her concurring opinion in the Bruen case raised eyebrows. Kirk calls her stance “iffy.” As for Chief Justice Roberts, his decision in Rahimi introduced language about “nuanced approaches” and “modern societal problems,” which some see as a quiet erosion of the Bruen framework. According to Kirk, Roberts may be crafting a path that could allow bans to stand under certain interpretations. If both Barrett and Roberts swing against gun owners, a 5-4 decision upholding the bans becomes a real possibility.

Copper Jacket TV’s Take: This Delay is Unacceptable

Over on Copper Jacket TV, William doesn’t hold back his frustration. “Enough is enough already,” he says. “These cases need to be taken – period, hands down.” He argues that the ongoing delays mean continued rights violations for millions of Americans living under these bans. Every week the Court pushes off a decision is another week people are denied what he believes are basic constitutional protections. “The lower courts are not working on our behalf,” he warns.

Jared Yanis: 26 States Step In

Jared Yanis of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News brought another layer to the story: the growing support among states. Twenty-six attorneys general have filed an amicus brief urging the Court to take action, challenging bans in Washington, D.C., California, New York, and beyond. Yanis emphasized that these states aren’t asking the Court to invent new doctrine – they’re simply demanding the justices follow their own precedents from Heller, McDonald, and Bruen. As Yanis put it, “If millions of Americans lawfully own these items, then banning them violates the Second Amendment. Period. Point blank.”

A Legal House of Cards

Jared also pointed to the absurd logic in recent lower court rulings. In one instance, the D.C. Circuit Court admitted that magazines holding more than ten rounds are in common use for self-defense. But they upheld the ban anyway – by citing a 19th-century law banning Bowie knives. This kind of judicial gymnastics, Yanis argues, shows just how far some courts are willing to go to sidestep Supreme Court rulings. It’s not about following Bruen’s history-and-tradition test anymore – it’s about rationalizing bans by any means necessary.

Why This Matters More Than Ever

The consequences of these rulings are enormous. If the Court upholds Maryland and Rhode Island’s laws, it would provide a roadmap for other states to expand gun restrictions under the guise of modern concerns. It would also signal that the Supreme Court is willing to walk back its own recent decisions if the political pressure is high enough. That kind of signal would embolden gun control advocates and put existing gun rights rulings in jeopardy.

This Feels Like a Test of the Court’s Integrity

Here’s what really jumps out – this moment feels like a stress test for the Supreme Court’s credibility. Bruen wasn’t vague. It made clear that if something is in “common use” for lawful purposes, it is protected. Now, we’re watching to see if the Court will follow its own rules or carve out exceptions for political reasons. It’s not just about guns anymore – it’s about whether the Supreme Court will stick to principle or bend to pressure.

The Path Forward is Cloudy

As of now, both cases are set for a tenth conference on April 4th. Maybe the Court is waiting for other related cases to mature. Maybe internal disagreements are slowing the process. Or maybe, as Kirk fears, there are already five justices ready to uphold these bans. Either way, millions of Americans are left in limbo, their rights on hold while the Court decides whether or not to act. Gun owners, constitutional scholars, and everyday citizens are watching closely – because this decision, whenever it comes, won’t just affect one state. It could redraw the lines of the Second Amendment for the entire nation.