Incoming Supreme Court Ruling on AR-15 Ban?

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear Snope v. Brown, a high-profile case challenging Maryland’s 2013 ban on AR-15 rifles. As Zach Schonfeld reported in The Hill, only three justices – Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch – voted to grant certiorari, one short of the four votes required to take up the case. While this leaves Maryland’s ban in place for now, the court may not be done with the issue.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh issued a written statement signaling that he may provide the fourth vote in a future case. While he did not support hearing Snope v. Brown just yet, he made clear that “this Court should and presumably will address the AR–15 issue soon, in the next Term or two.”

AR-15s Still in Legal Limbo After Maryland Ruling

Maryland’s law, enacted in response to the Sandy Hook tragedy, prohibits possession of semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15, which are owned by millions of Americans. According to the SCOTUS Blog’s Amy Howe, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit upheld the law, arguing that AR-15s are “military-style weapons” not protected under the Second Amendment.

Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, writing for the majority, claimed the AR-15’s design for “sustained combat operations” made it unsuitable for civilian use. In contrast, a strong dissent from Judge Julius Richardson argued the AR-15 is in “common use” and clearly protected by the Constitution.

Justice Thomas: “I Would Not Wait”

Justice Clarence Thomas was not subtle in his dissent. As quoted by The Hill and SCOTUS Blog, Thomas slammed the lower court’s logic and criticized the majority of the Supreme Court for failing to intervene. “I would not wait to decide whether the government can ban the most popular rifle in America,” he wrote. “We have avoided deciding it for a full decade.”

Thomas said AR-15s do not fall within the “dangerous and unusual” category that allows certain firearms to be banned. Instead, he argued they are ordinary arms used for lawful purposes, especially self-defense, by tens of millions of Americans.

Armed Attorneys: “A Huge Loss for Gun Owners”

Gun rights lawyers Richard Hayes and Emily Taylor, hosts of the YouTube channel Armed Attorneys, called the court’s denial a “huge loss” for Second Amendment advocates. In their breakdown of Snope v. Brown, they explained that the 4th Circuit relied on outdated reasoning and refused to apply the proper constitutional test from New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

As Taylor put it, the 4th Circuit “didn’t even get to a Bruen analysis,” instead declaring AR-15s unprotected because they’re allegedly most useful in military service. Hayes added that this “reversed the burden” the Supreme Court laid out in Bruen, allowing the government to sidestep the historical justification requirement entirely.

Kavanaugh: “Let’s Wait and See”

Justice Kavanaugh’s statement was met with particular frustration by Hayes and Taylor. Although he questioned the 4th Circuit’s reasoning, he chose not to vote to hear the case. “This was horrifically disappointing,” Taylor said. “He said, ‘We’ll come back to this later,’ as if that’s how we treat fundamental rights.”

Kavanaugh’s rationale was that other appellate courts are still considering similar cases, and the Supreme Court should wait until those decisions are handed down. “Opinions from other Courts of Appeals should assist this Court’s ultimate decisionmaking,” he wrote.

Court Also Denies Magazine Ban Challenge

The justices also rejected Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island, a challenge to that state’s ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds. As Amy Howe explained in SCOTUS Blog, this law was passed after the Uvalde school shooting and forced gun owners to either modify, turn in, or sell their magazines.

Again, Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch indicated they would have heard the case. The 1st Circuit upheld the ban, arguing that civilians “rarely, if ever,” need more than 10 rounds for self-defense and that the law fits within a tradition of regulating especially dangerous weapons.

The Common Use Test: At the Heart of the Debate

All three sources – The Hill, SCOTUS Blog, and Armed Attorneys – highlight the tension over the “common use” standard. According to District of Columbia v. Heller, weapons “in common use” by law-abiding citizens are protected under the Second Amendment. AR-15s, which make up an estimated 20% of civilian rifles sold in the U.S., clearly meet that standard.

Richardson’s dissent in the 4th Circuit emphasized this point, calling the ban unconstitutional. Thomas echoed the sentiment, stating that if common use doesn’t apply to AR-15s, “then it applies to nothing.”

This Can’t Stay in Limbo Forever

From a constitutional standpoint, it’s hard not to be stunned that the Supreme Court let this one slide. When a federal court rules that America’s most popular rifle isn’t protected by the Second Amendment, that’s not a minor legal hiccup – it’s a challenge to the very heart of the right to keep and bear arms.

I get Kavanaugh’s reasoning: let the issue “percolate” in the lower courts before making a sweeping decision. But when states like Maryland are already acting on that flawed logic, citizens’ rights are being restricted in real time. This isn’t just an academic debate – it affects millions of law-abiding people now.

A Pattern of Delay?

The Supreme Court has taken a notoriously cautious approach to Second Amendment cases. After Heller in 2008 and McDonald in 2010, the Court largely avoided gun cases until Bruen in 2022. That’s a gap of over a decade. If Kavanaugh is serious about ruling on this issue “soon,” let’s hope “soon” doesn’t mean 2035.

Meanwhile, lower courts seem emboldened to carve exceptions into Heller and Bruen. As Taylor put it bluntly, “They’re letting them take our rights.” That’s not just emotional – it’s legally valid criticism.

The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher

At the core of this case is a simple but critical question: Can a state ban a commonly owned firearm simply because it looks like a military weapon? If the answer is yes, then what’s to stop other states from banning pump shotguns or semi-auto pistols next?

The Snope v. Brown case was a missed opportunity for the Supreme Court to draw a line in the sand. But based on Kavanaugh’s words and Thomas’s fire, this issue is far from settled.

What Comes Next?

According to all three sources, more challenges are working their way through the lower courts. Kavanaugh’s statement essentially invites those cases to proceed, hinting that the Court will be ready to act once there’s more to compare. In the meantime, gun owners in Maryland and other states with bans remain in limbo.

This moment may feel like a loss, but it’s also a setup for what could be the most significant Second Amendment ruling since Bruen. The justices can’t dodge this issue forever, and with multiple bans under challenge, the pressure is building.

Delayed, Not Denied

So, is a Supreme Court ruling on AR-15 bans coming? Most likely, yes. Kavanaugh’s message suggests the court is preparing to take up the issue, just not yet. Meanwhile, Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch are ready now. And gun rights advocates? They’re fired up and watching every move.

For now, Maryland’s ban stays in place. But if these signals mean what we think they mean, the next term or two could bring a massive Second Amendment showdown.