On Monday, June 2, the Supreme Court quietly declined to hear two important Second Amendment cases – one out of Maryland challenging an assault weapons ban, and another from Rhode Island targeting large-capacity magazine restrictions.
As reported by Lindsay Whitehurst of AP News, the Court gave no explanation for its decision, but three conservative justices – Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch – publicly stated they would have taken the cases. That’s one short of the four votes needed to move forward.
For many gun rights advocates, the silence from the bench felt deafening.
Justices Split as AR-15 Ban Stands
Maryland’s ban, passed after the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting, outlaws a long list of semi-automatic rifles, including the AR-15. Whitehurst notes that the Court’s refusal to hear Snope v. Brown leaves the Fourth Circuit’s ruling intact, which upheld the ban on the grounds that such rifles resemble military-grade weapons and aren’t protected by the Constitution. That ruling runs up against the 2022 Bruen decision, which told lower courts to base gun law rulings on historical precedent, not modern policy concerns.
Justice Clarence Thomas didn’t hold back in his dissent. “I would not wait to decide whether the government can ban the most popular rifle in America,” he wrote, calling the AR-15 a common arm used by millions for lawful purposes. Alito and Gorsuch agreed. Their concern: if these guns are in “common use,” as the Heller and Bruen decisions require, then bans like Maryland’s likely violate the Second Amendment.
Kavanaugh Offers a Glimmer of Hope
According to Amy Howe at SCOTUS Blog, Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed with denying the case – but made it clear that doesn’t mean he supports the law. He wrote that the question “should and presumably will” be addressed by the Court “in the next Term or two.” He emphasized the popularity of the AR-15 and questioned whether the Fourth Circuit’s decision is compatible with the Court’s own precedents.
This statement is cold comfort to those currently living under state-level bans. As Andrew Branca pointed out in his video commentary on Law of Self Defense, the delay has real costs. Gun owners must continue fighting expensive legal battles, often without reimbursement unless they win – and when the Court refuses to take the case, that money is just gone.
Rhode Island Magazine Ban Also Left Intact
In Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island, the Court also declined to intervene. This case involved Rhode Island’s 2022 law banning magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, passed shortly after the Uvalde school shooting. Rhode Islanders had to either modify, surrender, or sell their magazines – or face criminal penalties.
The First Circuit ruled that the ban likely does not infringe the Second Amendment, arguing that self-defense scenarios rarely require more than 10 shots and that the law fits a historical tradition of firearm regulation. The state also claimed the magazines are “accessories,” not “arms,” and thus not fully protected under the Constitution.
Thomas Slams the Lower Courts
Justice Thomas again dissented, accusing lower courts of distorting Second Amendment precedent. He said AR-15s and similar firearms don’t meet the historical exception for “dangerous and unusual weapons,” a phrase that appears often in gun law debates. According to him, the very popularity of these rifles means they can’t be considered “unusual.”
This is consistent with Thomas’s long history of standing firm on 2A issues. Back in 2015, he dissented when the Court refused to hear a challenge to another AR-15 ban, saying that the overwhelming majority of owners use them lawfully. He remains the Court’s most vocal Second Amendment defender.
Why This Matters Now More Than Ever
Branca’s analysis added a layer of frustration to the legal loss. He pointed out that both Snope and Ocean State were stuck in limbo for months, scheduled and rescheduled more than a dozen times, which suggests significant behind-the-scenes disagreement among the justices. He believes this shows that some conservative justices may be hesitant to take up politically charged cases during an election year.
He also emphasized the financial impact on gun rights groups. Because legal costs are only reimbursed if you win, and the Court’s refusal to hear these cases means the challengers didn’t technically “win,” the money they spent is simply gone. This disincentivizes future legal challenges, even when rights are clearly at stake.
Branca’s Warning: A Court That Won’t Stand for Us
In a particularly powerful moment, Branca voiced concern that Americans may begin to feel abandoned by the very Court meant to protect them. “It’s unreasonable to expect people to stand up for a Supreme Court that will not stand up for them,” he said. That line hits hard. It suggests a dangerous erosion of trust between the American public and its highest court, especially when the issue at stake is a constitutional right.
He also echoed the sentiment of many gun rights attorneys, including Kostas Moros, who argue that the Court needs more justices like Judge VanDyke—jurists unafraid to call out the system when it turns its back on the Constitution. Moros called for “a voice of rage” on the bench, someone willing to be the loud, principled outlier in defense of core rights.
A Court Waiting Too Long
What struck me most is the strategic delay. Kavanaugh says the Court will probably take up the issue “in the next term or two.” But that’s not good enough. Constitutional rights aren’t something you put on a shelf while you wait for the political climate to cool. If the Court believes a law is unconstitutional, then Americans deserve relief now, not after another year or two of legal wrangling.
In the meantime, millions of law-abiding Americans are living under laws that the Court itself suspects may be unconstitutional. That’s not how the Bill of Rights is supposed to work. The whole point of these rights is that they don’t depend on geography or politics.
Delays Cost More Than Just Time
It’s also important to highlight the human cost. Many of these lawsuits are brought by ordinary citizens who simply want to own a legal firearm or accessory. They spend years in court, pour their savings into legal fees, and then get nothing when the Court refuses to even hear their case. Branca’s frustration on this point is completely justified. Legal defense of constitutional rights shouldn’t be a gamble where the house always wins.
And let’s not forget: in states like California, New York, and New Jersey, bans on “standard” magazines and rifles are already in full effect. These aren’t hypothetical restrictions. They’re real, and they carry real penalties.
What Happens Next
Though the Court didn’t take up these two cases, the battle is far from over. The Second Amendment Foundation told AP News they have seven more cases in the pipeline, and the Duncan v. Bonta case from California may be next. That one also involves magazine bans and is expected to reach the Court soon, especially with the Justice Department now showing signs of a friendlier stance under the Trump administration.
As Amy Howe wrote, Kavanaugh’s statement signals that the Court knows it can’t avoid this issue forever. Several appeals courts have conflicting rulings, and with more challenges underway, a resolution seems inevitable.
The Second Amendment Waits on the Sidelines
For now, though, the Second Amendment hangs in limbo. States are enacting sweeping restrictions while the nation’s highest court watches from the bench. Justices like Thomas and Alito are sounding the alarm, but they’re outvoted by colleagues who seem reluctant to engage.
And that’s the biggest worry of all: when a fundamental right can be sidestepped, delayed, or outright ignored, what does that say about the health of our Constitution? The Court may have passed for now, but the country is still waiting for justice.
Mark grew up in the heart of Texas, where tornadoes and extreme weather were a part of life. His early experiences sparked a fascination with emergency preparedness and homesteading. A father of three, Mark is dedicated to teaching families how to be self-sufficient, with a focus on food storage, DIY projects, and energy independence. His writing empowers everyday people to take small steps toward greater self-reliance without feeling overwhelmed.
