The Supreme Court Shoots Blanks at American Gun Grabbers

We regret to inform you that the most commonly used gun in the United States of America, the AR-15-style rifle, apparently doesn't qualify for the U.S. Supreme Court's "common use" historical gun test embodied in the Bruen gun decision. At least not yet, anyway.

The Supremes didn't rule on that question this week. Instead, they decided not to take a case that challenged a Maryland law that would have decided the issue.

The deciding vote not to take the Snope vs. Brown case that would have tested Maryland's ban on AR-15-style rifles was Brett Kavanaugh's. He issued a treacly missive saying that he was so sorry, but we'll get 'er next time.

Kavanaugh called the case "an outlier."

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.

But Kavanaugh said there's a silver lining on this nuclear cloud:

In short, under this Court’s precedents, the Fourth Circuit’s decision is questionable. Although the Court today denies certiorari, a denial of certiorari does not mean that the Court agrees with a lower-court decision or that the issue is not worthy of review. The AR–15 issue was recently decided by the First Circuit and is currently being considered by several other Courts of Appeals.

By issuing the statement, Kavanaugh telegraphed that he's waiting for a circuit court split on the AR-15 issue.

At least, that's the hope of gun rights advocate Mark Smith, who admitted that politics and optics played a big role in the delay of full Second Amendment rights for Americans.

For whatever reason, SCOTUS decided not to use its "political capital" this term on an AR-15 ban case. This may be because they see their Trump-related ruling as so hot button they don't want to add an AR case ...
On the silver lining front--Justice Kavanaugh signaled that SCOTUS will take an AR-15 ban case in the next term or two. This is important because in 2020, Kavanaugh said the same thing in NYSRPA v. New York City and then (2 years later) in 2022 we got the huge Bruen victory on right to carry.

I'm not running a dead pool or anything, but don't you wonder what SCOTUS members could retire—or even die—by the time this is adjudicated?

2A BREAKING: SCOTUS Snope Cert Denial Points from Professor Mark Smith:
1. The bad news is that SCOTUS refuses to enforce 2A rights vigorously. The Roberts' Court's "judicial minimalism" approach is terrible for 2A
2. For whatever reason, SCOTUS decided not to use its "political…
— Mark W. Smith/#2A Scholar (@fourboxesdiner) June 2, 2025

But the hope of a circuit split making it easier for the Supreme Court to take the case is completely specious. And they know it.

Bill Kirk from Washington Gun Law notes that the circuits Kavanaugh's waiting for are most certainly going to either ban or limit the rifles. Doubt me? The cases we're waiting for are in "California, Connecticut, California, New Jersey, California, Illinois, California."

Gee, all of a sudden, these anti-gun ideologues will have an epiphany and for once, they'll rule in favor of the Second Amendment — said no one ever. This is absolutely absurd "logic" by Kavanaugh.

Kirk said in a recent video:

Kavanaugh also states the AR-15 issue has recently been decided by the First Circuit and is currently being considered by several other courts of appeals, so he wants all of these decisions, I guess, to percolate, but here's a problem. If you take a look at the citations of all the cases he's talking about, ask yourself this, America: Where do you think these cases are going to come down? Because the cases he cites are from California, Connecticut, California, New Jersey, California, Illinois, California.
And then [he] has the audacity to conclude his statement with "Opinions from other Courts of Appeals should assist this Court’s ultimate decision-making on the AR–15 issue. Additional petitions for certiorari will likely be before this Court shortly and, in my view, this Court should and presumably will address the AR–15 issue soon, in the next Term or two."
Okay, so that is literally a Supreme Court justice telling you, "Yeah, we're probably going to get around to it after we let four other courts develop bad law.'"

What good are these people, anyway? It's the Second damned Amendment, people.

Clarence Thomas wrote a dissent to the Heisman move from his compatriots.

It is our responsibility to press on, win or lose, and continue to challenge the unconstitutionality of gun control measures. Join SAF today at https://t.co/lIGmPz1LjO pic.twitter.com/dB64FtFyqh
— SAF (@2AFDN) June 3, 2025

In his eight-page dissent, which was joined by — everybody now — Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, Thomas basically said, Dude, don't you remember that Bruen decision I penned not so long ago?

Thomas was far more eloquent when he spat, "It is difficult to see how Maryland’s categorical prohibition on AR–15s passes muster under [the Bruen] framework." And that's from the guy who wrote the Bruen decision.

Indeed, Thomas said that Maryland's law is so out of bounds that taking the case is a no-brainer. And a Fourth Circuit decision upholding it is so plainly wrong, this isn't even a hard decision.

Because AR–15s are “Arms,” the burden shifts to Maryland to show that banning AR–15s is “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” But, I am not aware of any “historical regulation” that could serve as “a proper analogue” to Maryland’s ban.
Our Constitution allows the American people, not the government—to decide which weapons are useful for self defense. “A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all.”

He spiked the idea of "percolating" a decision at the circuit level because "Our Constitution allows the American people — not the government—to decide which weapons are useful for self defense. 'A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all.'"

He's got that right.

Help PJ Media continue to tell the truth about the left's subversion of our Constitution. Join PJ Media VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.