WorthyNews:Supreme Court Declines to Hear Challenge to Maryland’s AR-15 Ban, But Justices Signal Fight Isn’t Over

[WorthyNewsBot]

by Emmitt Barry, with reporting from Washington D.C. Bureau Staff

(Worthy News) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a major Second Amendment case challenging Maryland’s ban on so-called “assault weapons,” allowing the state’s prohibition on the sale of AR-15-style rifles and other popular semiautomatic firearms to remain in place–for now.

Gun rights advocates had urged the high court to intervene, arguing that the time had come for a definitive ruling on whether AR-15s and similar rifles fall under the protections of the Second Amendment. While the court refused to hear the case, several justices signaled the issue is far from settled.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Maryland native, joined the majority in denying the case but issued a statement casting doubt on the constitutionality of Maryland’s 2013 law. “Although the court today denies certiorari, a denial of certiorari does not mean that the court agrees with a lower-court decision,” Kavanaugh wrote. “This court should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon, in the next term or two.”

Maryland’s law, enacted in the aftermath of mass shootings such as Sandy Hook, targets not only the AR-15, but also the AK-47 and .50 caliber rifles, labeling them “assault weapons” that are “dangerous and unusual.” The Supreme Court has previously ruled that such weapons fall outside Second Amendment protections.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law last year in a sharply worded opinion by Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, who called AR-15s “primary instruments of mass killing and terrorist attacks.” He described them as “combat-functional” firearms that go beyond the realm of civilian self-defense.

However, three justices–Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch–said they would have heard the case immediately. Justice Thomas, in a fiery dissent, warned that the delay could embolden federal overreach. “I would not wait to decide whether the government can ban the most popular rifle in America,” he said. “We have avoided deciding it for a full decade.”

Thomas pointed to the Court’s landmark Bruen decision, which held that gun restrictions must align with the historical understanding of the Second Amendment at the time of the Founders. He argued that AR-15s, while semiautomatic, function no differently than many handguns used for self-defense and should therefore be protected.

Gun rights groups have emphasized that tens of millions of AR-15s are already in legal circulation across more than 40 states, underscoring the rifle’s widespread acceptance among law-abiding Americans.

While Monday’s action leaves Maryland’s ban in place, all eyes will now turn to the next round of legal challenges moving through lower courts. As Kavanaugh noted, the high court appears poised to confront the AR-15 question directly–just not yet.

The post Supreme Court Declines to Hear Challenge to Maryland’s AR-15 Ban, But Justices Signal Fight Isn’t Over appeared first on Worthy Christian News.

View the full article

[NConly]

typical crap not even the supreme wants to face the facts that anyone willing to go in a school or any other building to randomly kill people started in public school and in some cases at home. More needs to be done with kids between 5 and 18 for this to stop.

It is not the gun. muslim nurse in Au was killing people she was to take care at the h0spital. A while back some flew Jets into towers to kill  people. Some use cars and trucks to kill people in crowds. Some use a knife to kill in public. 

[The_Patriot21]

He's right in the function like handguns in that you pull a trigger and it goes boom. But the other side is also right in that they go beyond the realm of self defense and enter the realm of a combat capable weapon.

Don't get me wrong they certainly can be used for self defense. But they're not drastically different from their military counterpart.

The issue is how they're viewing the intent of the second amendment, not their definition of a firearm and it's uses.

According to the intent of the original second amendment, we should be able to own the exact same weapons the military does. I.e. combat capable weapons. That would include the military versions of the ARs, not just the watered down versions available on the market. We should also be able to buy things like the fully auto M249 Saw or even a fully operational tank, for that matter.

[Luther]

MBack in the early 1900s the Bolsheviks (communists, Marxists) knew that they couldn't Just take over the United States like they did in Russia. Too much revolutionary spirit and most importantly too many firearms. 

They've done it through our schools, universities, media and entertainment. You don't have to worry about fending them off at your front door. They transformed our society without a single shot being fired. 

But will America go along with obeying laws set up from a world court in  another country? The soon to come UN police force?