The Supreme Court Sends a Clear Message—But Not About Gun Rights

The Supreme Court Sends a Clear Message—But Not About Gun Rights

On June 2, 2025, the Supreme Court quietly declined to hear two high-stakes gun-rights cases: Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island, which challenged Rhode Island’s 10‑round magazine limit, and Snope v. Brown, contesting Maryland’s ban on AR‑15‑style rifles. These denials let stand lower-court rulings that upheld both laws, leaving millions of law‑abiding Americans in limbo regarding the future of their Second Amendment rights (thereload.com).

From the liberal side, outlets like Reuters and the Associated Press noted that the Court’s six‑justice majority offered no explanation for their refusal. Instead, the spotlight fell on the four conservative justices—Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh—who sounded clear alarms. Reuters emphasized that Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch formally dissented, while Kavanaugh expressed "sympathy" for the challengers, arguing that the issue “will return…soon” (reuters.com).

Conservative sources provided critical context. The Reload, a 2A‑focused publication, explained that the denial was likely procedural—a consequence of the case’s posture—rather than a refusal on the merits. It highlighted that Ocean State Tactical had already been relisted by the Court 15 times, before the denial closed out the window for further appeal (thereload.com). Meanwhile, News2A.com, a grassroots gun‑rights outlet, argued the Supreme Court has a history of letting cases “percolate” through lower courts, yet they flagged that time may be running short now that related appeals are closely aligned (news2a.com).

The dissenting justices didn’t mince words. Justice Thomas framed the question as one of “critical importance to tens of millions of law‑abiding AR‑15 owners,” decrying the lack of a final judgment on whether the most popular rifle in America is constitutionally protected (apnews.com). Meanwhile, Justices Alito and Gorsuch joined him in urging the Court to resolve these foundational issues.

Justice Kavanaugh, in his concurrence, went further. While not dissenting outright, he sharply criticized the legal reasoning of the lower courts and signaled broader systemic uncertainty. “Opinions from other Courts of Appeals should assist this Court’s ultimate decision making on the AR‑15 issue,” he noted, clearly calling for future review .

Lower Courts: A Constitutional Tug‑of‑War

In Maryland, the Fourth Circuit upheld the ban on AR‑15‑style rifles, defining them as “military‑style weapons ill‑suited and disproportionate to the need for self‑defense.” The court trusted in its ability to regulate “excessively dangerous” arms under traditional Constitutional frameworks (reuters.com). Judge Wilkinson’s majority opinion was met with pointed criticism from Judge Richardson, who defended AR‑15s as risk-bearing defensive tools in “common use.”

Over in Rhode Island, the First Circuit backed the state’s ban on large‑capacity magazines, stating that while such items aren’t banned outright from civilian hands, they’re not protected under the Constitution—especially given their role in mass shootings (law.justia.com).

Conservative analysts say these rulings conflict sharply with Bruen (2022), the landmark Supreme Court decision mandating historical analogues for any modern gun restriction. Without direct Supreme Court guidance, circuit courts are effectively deciding anew what counts as “common use” or “dangerous and unusual”—with inconsistent results across the country .

Who the Court Prioritizes

What stands out is what the Court is hearing—namely, cases about immigration and executive authority tied to the Trump administration. In April, it accepted petitions affecting deportation powers and election law challenges with impressive speed, indicating a clear judicial appetite for politically charged litigation .

In contrast, foundational Second Amendment questions—affecting millions of everyday gun owners—are generating only procedural postponements and percolation, not outright review.

Why It Matters—Beyond Legal Technicalities

Here’s what’s at stake: AR‑15s and 30‑round magazines are not niche weapons. Estimates suggest 15 to 20 million Americans own AR‑15s alone . If the Supreme Court’s decision—by denial—is to allow a statewide ban to stand, the question becomes whether constitutional protections are being applied evenly.

Conservative voices like the Independent Institute point out that percolation isn’t a legal excuse—it’s a delay tactic. And given the near-uniform practice of “relisting” cases that eventually receive relief, the current denials may be a temporary pause—but law‑abiding owners are left without clarity today .

The Bottom Line

Here is the troubling takeaway: when it comes to executive-related or politically charged cases, the Supreme Court acts quickly. But when it comes to hard questions about individual constitutional rights, it hesitates—even when dozens of millions of Americans are affected. The message is clear: certain priorities are fast-tracked, while others are pressed to the backburner.

Until the Court grants certiorari and fully addresses whether modern, commonly used firearms fall within Second Amendment protections, states will continue to independently regulate—or restrict—ownership. And millions of law‑abiding civilians remain in constitutional limbo.