Maryland’s AR-15 ban stands, but not without a fight. The U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to hear a challenge to the state’s “assault weapons” restriction has sparked a sharp dissent from conservative justices, signaling a brewing battle over Second Amendment rights. For gun owners, it’s a frustrating dodge of a core constitutional question.
Breitbart reported that the high court declined the case Monday, leaving Maryland’s ban intact. Justices Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas publicly opposed the decision, while Brett Kavanaugh hinted at future consideration.
This punt keeps AR-15 owners in limbo, wondering when their rights will get a fair shake. Justice Thomas didn’t mince words, calling the issue “critical” for millions.
He argued AR-15s are protected under the Second Amendment, citing the 2008 Heller decision. His dissent reads like a rallying cry for gun enthusiasts tired of judicial sidesteps.
“AR–15s are clearly ‘Arms’ under the Second Amendment’s plain text,” Thomas wrote. Heller defined “Arms” as weapons of offense or defense, including modern instruments not around during the founding. Some justices think the Constitution’s ink dried in 1791.
The Second Amendment’s reach isn’t stuck in the musket era. Heller made it clear: bearable arms, old or new, are protected.
Maryland’s ban, Thomas argues, ignores this, treating AR-15s like contraband rather than constitutional guarantees.
Maryland’s defense hinges on historical precedent, per the 2022 Bruen ruling. The state must prove its ban aligns with America’s tradition of firearm regulation. Spoiler: Thomas says no such tradition exists, and Maryland is grasping at straws.
“I am not aware of any ‘historical regulation’ that could serve as a proper analogue,” Thomas stated. Without a historical twin, Maryland’s ban looks like a modern overreach, not a nod to tradition. Gun control advocates might call this progress; others call it constitutional erosion.
The burden is on Maryland to justify its restriction. Bruen demands a clear historical parallel, not just good intentions. So far, the state’s come up empty, leaving Thomas and company skeptical of its case.
AR-15s aren’t niche toys; they’re America’s most popular rifle. Thomas emphasized their importance to “tens of millions” of law-abiding owners. Banning them isn’t a small policy tweak—it’s a direct jab at Second Amendment protections.
“I would not wait to decide whether the government can ban the most popular rifle in America,” Thomas declared. His urgency underscores the stakes for gun owners facing a patchwork of state restrictions. Patience, it seems, isn’t a virtue when rights are on the line.
The court’s majority, though, opted for caution. Kavanaugh’s concurrence suggests the issue might resurface soon, perhaps in a term or two. That’s cold comfort for AR-15 owners stuck under Maryland’s ban today.
Gorsuch and Alito joined Thomas in dissent, forming a vocal minority. Their stance signals the court’s conservative wing isn’t ready to let Second Amendment questions slide. The fight’s delayed, not dead.
Maryland’s ban survives, but the debate’s far from over. The Supreme Court’s refusal to engage now only postpones a reckoning on “assault weapon” bans. Gun owners, meanwhile, are left navigating a legal minefield.
Thomas’s dissent lays bare a simple truth: AR-15s are arms, and bans need historical backing. Without it, Maryland’s restriction smells like political posturing, not principled governance. The Constitution deserves better than a shrug.
