The U.S. Supreme Court has opted not to consider an appeal that contests Delaware’s prohibition on assault-style rifles and large-capacity ammunition magazines, as well as a case concerning Maryland’s handgun licensing regulations. This decision allows the Court to sidestep two pivotal cases related to the divisive topic of gun rights.
The justices rejected an appeal from a coalition of gun enthusiasts and firearm advocacy groups who aimed to overturn Delaware’s ban on “assault weapons” and magazines that can hold more than 17 rounds, following a lower court’s refusal to grant a preliminary injunction. According to Reuters, such firearms have been implicated in numerous mass shootings across the United States; however, FBI crime statistics indicate that the majority of gun-related homicides are perpetrated with handguns.
Additionally, the justices declined to review an appeal from the gun rights organization Maryland Shall Issue and other parties challenging a lower court’s decision that affirmed the state’s licensing law as compliant with the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects the right to keep and bear arms.
While the Court chose not to engage with these two specific cases, it did not take action on two other appeals contesting Maryland’s assault weapon ban and one from Rhode Island regarding large-capacity ammunition magazines.
With a 6-3 conservative majority, the Supreme Court has consistently embraced an originalist perspective on gun rights in key rulings since 2008. Delaware’s gun safety legislation, enacted in 2022, prohibits several semi-automatic “assault” rifles, including the AR-15 and AK-47, but permits individuals who possessed these firearms prior to the law’s enactment to keep them under certain conditions. The law also bans large-capacity magazines, impacting devices owned before its implementation.
The plaintiffs in this case include state residents seeking to acquire the prohibited firearms or magazines, a firearms dealer, the Firearms Policy Coalition, and the Second Amendment Foundation.
They have contended that the lower courts incorrectly dismissed their assertion that a “deprivation of Second Amendment rights inherently results in irreparable harm.” In 2023, a federal judge rejected the plaintiffs’ request for an injunction. Subsequently, in 2024, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, located in Philadelphia, affirmed that ruling.
The 3rd Circuit scrutinized the plaintiffs’ claim that an injunction is fundamentally necessary in this matter. The court stated, “Preliminary injunctions are not automatic.”
It further elaborated, “Tradition and precedent have long confined them to extraordinary circumstances. We find nothing extraordinary in this case.”
Maryland’s legislation from 2013 requires that most residents secure a qualification license prior to acquiring a handgun. This procedure necessitates that applicants undergo fingerprinting, complete training, and pass background checks.
The challengers maintain that this process is excessively onerous and that the requirement, which “can take a month or longer” to fulfill, deters individuals from exercising their Second Amendment rights. Conversely, Maryland argues that the fingerprinting and safety training requirements yield “significant public safety benefits.” The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, situated in Richmond, Virginia, sided with the state.
In October, the Supreme Court reviewed arguments regarding the legality of a 2022 federal regulation introduced by the Biden administration aimed at addressing “ghost guns”—untraceable firearms that have been increasingly utilized in criminal activities. A ruling is anticipated by the end of June.
On March 4, the justices are set to hear arguments in another firearms-related case, where U.S. gun manufacturer Smith & Wesson and firearms wholesaler Interstate Arms are seeking to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Mexico. The lawsuit alleges that they have played a role in the illegal trafficking of firearms to Mexican drug cartels.
Last year, the Supreme Court determined that a federal prohibition on “bump stock” devices, which enable semiautomatic weapons to fire at a higher rate, was valid.
