Justice Clarence Thomas blasts Supreme Court colleagues for avoiding a crucial decision on AR-15 bans, leaving millions of gun owners at the mercy of federal agency discretion rather than constitutional protection.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court declined to review Maryland’s ban on AR-15s despite dissent from Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch who wanted to address the issue immediately.
- Justice Thomas criticized the Court for avoiding this critical decision for a decade, emphasizing its importance to tens of millions of AR-15 owners across America.
- Justice Kavanaugh, while respecting the denial, noted AR-15s are legal in 41 states and in “common use,” suggesting they should be protected under the Second Amendment.
- The Fourth Circuit’s ruling that AR-15s are not protected “arms” under the Second Amendment remains in effect, setting a concerning precedent for gun rights.
- Thomas warned that without Supreme Court intervention, AR-15 owners must rely on federal agency discretion rather than constitutional guarantees for their rights.
Thomas Leads Dissent Against Court’s Refusal to Hear AR-15 Case
The Supreme Court has declined to review a case challenging Maryland’s ban on AR-15 rifles, prompting a forceful dissent from Justice Clarence Thomas. The case, David Snope, et al. v. Anthony G. Brown, centered on whether Maryland’s prohibition on certain semi-automatic rifles violates the Second Amendment. By refusing to hear the case, the Court allows the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling to stand, which determined that AR-15s are not protected “arms” under the Constitution despite their widespread ownership and use for lawful purposes across the United States.
Justice Thomas, joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, expressed significant concern about the implications of the Court’s inaction. The Fourth Circuit’s decision upholds Maryland’s ban based on the controversial determination that these commonly-owned firearms fall outside constitutional protection. This ruling creates a precarious situation for gun owners in states with similar bans and potentially opens the door for more restrictive legislation in other jurisdictions, effectively circumventing Second Amendment protections through judicial interpretation rather than constitutional amendment.
AR-15s: “Common Use” Status at Center of Constitutional Debate
At the heart of this controversy is whether AR-15s qualify as arms in “common use” – a standard established in previous Supreme Court decisions for determining Second Amendment protection. The statistics strongly suggest they do. Americans currently own an estimated 20-30 million AR-15 style rifles, making them the most popular rifles in the country. Furthermore, these firearms are legal in 41 of the 50 states, with only a handful of predominantly Democrat-controlled states implementing bans.
“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.
Justice Thomas took particular issue with the Fourth Circuit’s ruling, which he described as placing an unreasonably high burden on challengers to prove their case. He emphasized that AR-15s are overwhelmingly used for lawful purposes including self-defense and recreational shooting. By classifying them outside Second Amendment protection, the Fourth Circuit effectively granted state governments unprecedented authority to ban widely-owned firearms based on subjective determinations about their characteristics rather than their actual use by law-abiding citizens.
A Delay, Not a Final Decision
While the Court declined to hear this particular case, Justice Brett Kavanaugh indicated that the issue is likely to return soon. In his statement, Kavanaugh suggested that the Supreme Court would likely address the AR-15 question “in the next Term or two.” This statement offers some hope to Second Amendment advocates that the Court is merely postponing, rather than avoiding, a definitive ruling on whether states can constitutionally ban the most popular rifle in America.
Kavanaugh noted that several other appeals courts are currently reviewing similar cases challenging state-level AR-15 bans. These cases could provide additional legal perspectives and reasoning that might ultimately inform a more comprehensive Supreme Court decision. The current denial may reflect strategic patience rather than reluctance to address the fundamental constitutional questions at stake, though this reasoning offers little immediate comfort to AR-15 owners in Maryland and other states with similar prohibitions.
Thomas Warns of Continued Constitutional Erosion
In his forceful dissent, Justice Thomas emphasized the urgency of resolving this question rather than continuing to postpone it. He criticized the Court for avoiding the issue for “a full decade” despite its critical importance to millions of law-abiding gun owners. Thomas warned that without clear Supreme Court guidance, AR-15 owners must rely on the discretion of federal agencies like the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) rather than constitutional guarantees for protection of their rights.
“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.
This concern is particularly relevant given recent ATF actions regarding other firearms and accessories. Thomas specifically mentioned a recent Court decision on “ghost guns” and expressed concern that the ATF could potentially classify AR-15s as machineguns through regulatory interpretation. Such administrative reclassification would effectively criminalize millions of gun owners overnight without legislative action or constitutional amendment. The Court’s refusal to clearly define Second Amendment protections for common firearms leaves this possibility open.
