Justice Clarence Thomas delivered a powerful rebuke as the Supreme Court refused to protect AR-15 ownership rights, leaving millions of American gun owners vulnerable to state-level bans and potential federal classification changes.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court declined to review Maryland’s ban on AR-15 rifles, with Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissenting from this decision.
- Justice Thomas warned that without Supreme Court protection, AR-15 owners rely solely on federal agencies’ discretion rather than constitutional guarantees.
- Justice Kavanaugh noted AR-15s are legal in 41 states and in “common use,” suggesting they should be protected under the Second Amendment.
- Thomas criticized the Fourth Circuit’s ruling as “dubious” for claiming AR-15s are not protected “arms” under the Second Amendment.
- Kavanaugh indicated the court might address the AR-15 issue in the next term or two, leaving constitutional questions unresolved for now.
Supreme Court Sidesteps Critical Second Amendment Decision
The Supreme Court has declined to review Maryland’s ban on AR-15 rifles and other semi-automatic firearms, allowing the lower court ruling that upheld the ban to remain in effect. This decision represents a significant setback for Second Amendment advocates and leaves unresolved the question of whether the government can constitutionally prohibit ownership of America’s most popular rifle. The case, David Snope, et al. v. Anthony G. Brown, challenged Maryland’s restrictions on firearms that the state classifies as “assault weapons.”
Justice Clarence Thomas did not mince words in his dissent, expressing deep concern about the Court’s continued avoidance of this critical constitutional question. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals had previously ruled that AR-15s are not protected “arms” under the Second Amendment, a conclusion that Thomas and other conservative justices found deeply problematic and at odds with established precedent.
“I would not wait to decide whether the government can ban the most popular rifle in America. That question is of critical importance to tens of millions of law-abiding AR–15 owners throughout the country. We have avoided deciding it for a full decade,” Said Justice Clarence Thomas.
Justices Divided on AR-15 Protection
The Court’s refusal to take up the case revealed divisions among the justices regarding Second Amendment protections. While Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch wanted to address the issue immediately, Justice Brett Kavanaugh acknowledged the importance of the question but appeared willing to wait for additional cases to develop in lower courts. This hesitation likely reflects uncertainty about how Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett might rule on such a contentious issue.
Justice Kavanaugh noted in his statement that AR-15s meet the key criteria for constitutional protection established in previous Supreme Court decisions. He pointed out the widespread ownership and legal status of these firearms across the nation as evidence of their “common use” by law-abiding citizens, a standard established in the landmark Heller decision for determining Second Amendment protection.
“This case primarily concerns Maryland’s ban on the AR–15, a semi-automatic rifle. Americans today possess an estimated 20 to 30 million AR–15s. And AR–15s are legal in 41 of the 50 States, meaning that the States such as Maryland that prohibit AR–15s are something of an outlier. Given that millions of Americans own AR–15s and that a significant majority of the States allow possession of those rifles, petitioners have a strong argument that AR–15s are in ‘common use’ by law-abiding citizens and therefore are protected by the Second Amendment under Heller,” Said Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Thomas Warns of Precarious Position for Gun Owners
Justice Thomas’s dissent highlighted not only the constitutional issues at stake but also practical concerns for AR-15 owners. He warned that without clear Supreme Court protection, millions of law-abiding gun owners are left vulnerable to changing political winds and administrative decisions. Thomas specifically mentioned a recent Supreme Court decision regarding “ghost guns” that could potentially impact how federal agencies classify semi-automatic firearms like the AR-15.
The dissenting justices criticized the Fourth Circuit’s reasoning as fundamentally flawed and inconsistent with the Court’s own precedents. By questioning the classification of AR-15s as protected arms despite their widespread lawful use, the lower court effectively placed the burden on citizens to prove their constitutional rights rather than requiring the government to justify restrictions on those rights, a reversal of the proper constitutional analysis.
“AR–15s appear to fit neatly within that category of protected arms. Tens of millions of Americans own AR–15s, and the ‘overwhelming majority’ of them do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting,'” Stated Clarence Thomas.
For now, Maryland’s ban remains in effect, along with similar restrictions in other predominantly Democrat-controlled states. However, with Justice Kavanaugh suggesting that the Court will likely address this issue “in the next Term or two,” gun rights advocates may not have to wait much longer for clarity on this critical constitutional question. The outcome of that eventual decision will have profound implications for gun ownership rights across the country and the ability of states to restrict commonly owned firearms.
