We recently reported that the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear two cases related to the Second Amendment—one challenging Delaware’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” and “high-capacity” magazines, and the other targeting Maryland’s handgun licensing requirements.
To most gun-rights activists, the decision to not consider those cases was a disappointing one, as both Delaware’s ban and Maryland’s licensing requirements are arguably unconstitutional, especially when considering the criteria set down in the 2022 Bruen ruling.
However, not everything Second Amendment-related coming out of SCOTUS lately has been negative. According to a report at theindependent.org, two such cases were recently relisted for the court to again consider whether it will hear the cases.
The first case is Snope v. Brown, which also contests Maryland’s ban on semi-automatic rifles that are commonly used. In a brief urging the Supreme Court to consider the case, the National Rifle Association (NRA) succinctly summarized the appellant’s arguments.
“The Heller Court applied the text-and-history test later expounded in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen (2022),” the brief stated. “Analyzing the Second Amendment’s plain text, Heller determined that the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all bearable arms. Proceeding to our nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, Heller held that only ‘dangerous and unusual’ arms may be banned, and because common arms are not unusual, a ban on common arms violates the Second Amendment. Under Heller, this case is simple: Because Maryland bans common semiautomatic rifles— including the most popular rifle in America—the ban violates the Second Amendment.”
It’s easy to demonstrate how commonly used AR-15s and other modern semi-automatic sporting rifles are. According to a recent report from the NSSF, American citizens own over 30 million of these rifles, making the argument that they are “not in common use” quite weak.
Ultimately, in its petition, the NRA asked the court to grant the Petition for Certiorari to “reaffirm its precedents and restore the right of Americans to possess common weapons.”
The other case is Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island, which asks whether a confiscatory ban on the possession of magazines that are in common use violates the Second Amendment.
In a brief filed asking the Supreme Court to consider this matter, the NSSF used a similar argument to that used in the “assault weapons” ban case.
“In District of Columbia v. Heller, this Court established a clear constitutional rule: If an arm is in common use for lawful purposes by the American people, then an ‘absolute prohibition’ is simply ‘off the table’ for the government,” the brief argued. “In the years since, Justices Thomas, Alito, and then-Judge Kavanaugh have all expressly affirmed that Heller meant what it said: If an arm is in lawful common use, it cannot be totally banned—full stop. That should make this an easy case. What Rhode Island calls ‘large-capacity magazines’ (LCMs)—those that hold more than 10 rounds—are in reality ordinary magazines that are a standard component of the country’s most popular firearms. They are in lawful and common use—i.e., they are ‘typically possessed’—by millions of law-abiding Americans seeking to defend themselves, their families and their communities.”
It remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will agree to hear either of these cases. But at some point, it needs to weigh in once and for all on the many unconstitutional laws banning semi-auto rifles and normal-capacity magazines being passed regularly by lawmakers in less gun-friendly states.
Read the full article here