Supreme Court rejects two major gun cases – what it means for Second Amendment fights moving forward

The Supreme Court has turned away two closely watched Second Amendment cases, and gun-rights commentators are reading the move as both a setback and a possible sign of what may come next.

In separate reactions, William of Copper Jacket TV and attorney Mark W. Smith of The Four Boxes Diner said the Court denied review in Peterson v. United States and Gardner v. Maryland, two cases that touched on issues many gun owners have been hoping the justices would finally confront. One dealt with the National Firearms Act and suppressors. The other raised the question of interstate carry and whether the right to armed self-defense should vanish when someone crosses a state line.

Neither William nor Smith tried to hide their frustration. Both said the denials were disappointing, especially because these were not fringe questions. They were the kinds of disputes that get to the heart of how far the Second Amendment actually reaches in real life.

Two Cases The Court Chose Not To Hear

William explained on Copper Jacket TV that the Court’s Monday orders list brought bad news for gun-rights supporters. Out of several major Second Amendment petitions that had been conferenced, two were denied outright.

The first, Peterson v. United States, challenged the National Firearms Act’s taxation and registration scheme as it applies to suppressors. As William described it, the key questions were whether the NFA could really be treated as a licensing law and whether its registration and tax requirements violate the Second Amendment when suppressors are involved.

He argued that Peterson was a major case, not some minor legal footnote. William noted that the petition had support from amicus briefs filed by the Second Amendment Foundation and Gun Owners of America, which showed that national gun-rights groups saw it as a serious vehicle for Supreme Court review.

The second denied case was Gardner v. Maryland, which William described as a reciprocity case that grew out of a criminal prosecution. Gardner, who had a permit from Virginia, was prosecuted after carrying across state lines into Maryland, where that permit was not recognized.

To William, that case raised a bigger constitutional issue than just one state’s permitting rules. He said it put the question of self-defense while traveling directly before the Supreme Court. In his view, rights like the First, Fourth, and Second Amendments should not simply stop existing because someone crossed what he called an invisible border.

Smith made much the same point, though with more legal detail. On The Four Boxes Diner, Mark W. Smith said Gardner was a case about the right to travel with a firearm and the unfairness of punishing someone under a carry regime that was unconstitutional before Bruen changed the legal landscape.

Why The Gardner Denial Hit Hard

Smith focused closely on the facts behind Gardner. He said Eva Gardner was charged in Maryland even though she had a Virginia carry license and was traveling through Maryland on the way to her mother’s home in Pennsylvania.

He stressed that, at the time of her arrest, Maryland’s carry law still operated under the old discretionary “may issue” model that the Supreme Court later condemned in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. In Smith’s telling, that made the case especially troubling, because even if Gardner had wanted to obtain a Maryland permit back then, she likely would not have been able to.

That is part of what makes the denial so frustrating. The case was not just about paperwork. It was about whether someone can be convicted under a regime that the Supreme Court itself later recognized was constitutionally broken.

William made a similar argument, though in plainer language. He said Gardner was a strong test case for reciprocity and interstate travel, and he sounded irritated that the Court refused to take it despite support from the Second Amendment Foundation, the state of Virginia, the Cato Institute, and even Senator Ted Cruz, all of whom backed the petition with outside briefs.

When a case pulls support from that many corners and still gets denied, it sends an unmistakable message: the Court is still being extremely selective about when it wants to step into the gun debate.

Peterson And The NFA Question Stay Unresolved

The Peterson denial may have been just as important, especially for people watching suppressor litigation. William said Peterson asked whether the NFA’s tax-and-registration structure can be justified as a licensing scheme and whether that structure violates the Second Amendment as applied to suppressors.

Smith was even blunter. He said the Court’s refusal to hear Peterson was unfortunate because he believes suppressors are protected arms and that the NFA framework forcing them into a federal registration and taxation system is constitutionally suspect.

He tied that view to then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s 2011 dissent in the Heller II case, which Smith said laid out arguments that still matter now. In his view, the Court passed on a real opportunity to bring clarity to an area of gun law that remains heavily disputed.

Smith also spent time criticizing how Peterson was handled below, especially in the Fifth Circuit. He blamed what he saw as poor reasoning in the lower court’s approach, arguing that the decision wrongly blended registration concepts with licensing logic in a way that weakened the Second Amendment analysis.

William, for his part, emphasized the practical result. Petition denied. Case over, at least at this stage. For suppressor owners and NFA critics, that means no major clarification from the Supreme Court for now.

The Bigger Story May Be The Cases Still Alive

If there is any reason gun-rights advocates are not completely despairing, it is because the Court did not wipe the slate clean. William said four other major cases were not denied and were instead pushed to the next conference date.

Those cases include Duncan v. Bonta, Viramontes v. Cook County, Gators v. Washington, and NAGR v. Lamont. As William described them, they cover some of the biggest unresolved issues in gun law, including magazine bans and semi-automatic firearm restrictions.

He admitted that repeated relisting drives him “nuts,” especially because some of these cases have already been conferenced again and again. Still, he laid out several possibilities. The Court could grant one or more of them. It could deny them at the last minute, as happened with Snope and Ocean State. Or it could send some back to lower courts for reconsideration.

That uncertainty is exhausting, and William did not sugarcoat it. He said people should not have to wait year after year for a court to correct what they see as clear infringements.

That point lands hard because it reflects a deeper problem in Second Amendment litigation. Even when gun-rights challengers eventually win, the clock itself becomes part of the punishment. A delayed ruling can leave a ban or restriction in place for years, long after supporters of the law begin acting as if it has already been settled forever.

Mark Smith’s Theory About What The Court May Be Doing

Smith offered a more hopeful reading, even while admitting it was speculative. His theory is that the justices may be clearing away some non-AR-15 and non-magazine cases because they know larger Second Amendment fights are already coming.

He pointed to several categories of cases still moving through the system. One group involves so-called young adult cases, which ask whether 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds are part of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment. Smith said the historical answer is clearly yes, and he cited the Militia Act of 1792 as one major reason.

He also pointed to the growing list of AR-15 and magazine-ban cases. Those include Duncan v. Bonta, the Washington magazine case involving Gator Custom Guns, and pending rifle-ban disputes out of Illinois and New Jersey. Smith noted that the Department of Justice has even entered some of these cases on the pro-Second Amendment side, which adds even more weight to what may be coming.

His basic theory is simple: if the Court expects to take a major AR-15 case, a young-adult case, or a magazine case next term, it might be less interested in taking side-road cases right now. That does not erase the disappointment in Gardner and Peterson, but Smith suggested it could mean the justices are saving their fire for battles they see as broader and more consequential.

That is not a crazy reading. The Supreme Court often chooses cases not just on importance, but on timing, posture, and how cleanly they frame a legal question. For gun-rights supporters, that is cold comfort today, but it may explain why the Court passed on two important petitions while leaving other major ones hanging.

What This Means Moving Forward

For now, the direct outcome is clear. Gardner stands denied. Peterson stands denied. The Court will not use those cases to define interstate carry rights or to revisit the NFA’s treatment of suppressors.

But as both William and Mark Smith made clear, the larger war is not over. The relisted cases still matter. The incoming AR-15 and magazine-ban cases may matter even more. And if the Court really is waiting for what it sees as the cleanest next fight, this week’s disappointment may simply be part of a longer setup.

That may be true, but it is still fair for gun owners to see this as a bad day. When major constitutional questions keep getting pushed aside, it becomes harder to pretend the system is moving with any urgency.

At the same time, neither commentator sounded ready to write off the term or the next one. William is still watching the remaining conference dates, while Smith is betting that bigger Second Amendment cases are already lining up on the horizon. If they are right, the Court may not have spoken as loudly as gun-rights supporters hoped this week, but it may not be finished speaking either.