🔴 Website 👉 https://u-s-news.com/
Telegram 👉 https://t.me/usnewscom_channel
OAN Staff Brooke Mallory
5:29 PM – Tuesday, June 3, 2025
On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to hear two significant Second Amendment challenges, effectively allowing a Maryland law banning what gun control extremists label as “assault-style” weapons—including the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle—and a Rhode Island law restricting large-capacity magazines.
As a consequence, both laws remain in force. Legal challenges to comparable restrictions are still unfolding nationwide, suggesting that the matter may ultimately return to the Court’s docket.
Soon after, Janet Carter, a left-wing senior counsel at the gun control advocacy organization Everytown Law, expressed support for the Court’s decision in both instances.
Advertisement
“Courts of appeals across the country have consistently and correctly upheld laws like these — with countless communities safer as a result,” she said in a statement.
Nonetheless, on the flip side, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), a pro-Second Amendment gun rights advocacy organization involved in challenging the Maryland law, issued a statement expressing its disappointment. The group bluntly highlighted how “some members of the Supreme Court lacked the judicial courage to fulfill their most essential duty—upholding the Constitution.”
The FPC also urged the Trump administration to actively support gun rights advocates in future legal battles.
Although the Supreme Court has recently demonstrated hesitancy to hear new cases concerning the “broader interpretation” of the right to bear arms, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the decision, indicating they would have granted certiorari to review the case.
Justice Thomas authored a separate dissent, asserting that Maryland’s prohibition likely infringes upon the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.
“It is difficult to see how Maryland’s categorical prohibition on AR-15s passes muster under this framework,” Thomas wrote.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh did not dissent, but he expressed skepticism regarding the Constitutionality of such bans and suggested that the Court should address the issue in the near future.
“In my view, this court should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon,” Kavanaugh stated.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, as per usual, indicated their agreement with the liberal justices.
Maryland’s law prohibits firearms that it designates as “assault weapons,” a term that gun control extremists typically utilize in order to demonize firearms. It includes models comparable to military-style arms, such as the M16 and AR-15. Enacted in 2013 in response to the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting—the legislation allegedly aimed to address the use of such weapons in mass shootings.
The law was initially upheld by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, prior to the Supreme Court’s landmark 2022 decision expanding Second Amendment protections. Following that ruling, a new group of plaintiffs challenged the Maryland statute, prompting the Supreme Court to direct the appeals court to reconsider the case.
Nevertheless, the 4th Circuit reaffirmed its original decision in an August 2024 opinion.
Separately, the state of Rhode Island also enacted a law just before the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling that prohibits the possession of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.
Lower courts, including the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Boston, upheld the magazine capacity ban challenged by four gun owners and the firearms retailer Big Bear Hunting and Fishing Supply.
Additionally, in July of last year, the Supreme Court declined to intervene in several gun-related disputes shortly after affirming a federal statute prohibiting individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms.
Separately, on March 26th, the High Court upheld the Biden administration’s authority to regulate “ghost gun” kits—unserialized firearm components that can be readily assembled—though this ruling did not directly address the Constitutional right to bear arms.
Stay informed! Receive breaking news blasts directly to your inbox for free. Subscribe here. https://www.oann.com/alerts