Supreme Court won't hear challenge to Maryland assault weapons ban
WASHINGTON — A split Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear a challenge to a state ban on assault weapons, a term referring to semiautomatic rifles that are popular among gun owners and that have also been used in mass shootings.
The majority did not explain its reasoning in turning down the case over weapons like the AR-15, as is typical. But three conservative justices on the nine-member court publicly noted their disagreement, and a fourth said he is skeptical that such bans are constitutional.
Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch said they would have taken the case, and Justice Clarence Thomas wrote separately to say the law likely runs afoul of the Second Amendment.
'I would not wait to decide whether the government can ban the most popular rifle in America,' Thomas wrote. 'That question is of critical importance to tens of millions of law-abiding AR–15 owners throughout the country.'
Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed with the decision to pass on the case now but indicated that he is skeptical such bans are constitutional and that he expects the court will address the issue 'in the next term or two.'
The Maryland law was passed after the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut that killed 20 children and six adults. The shooter was armed with an AR-15, one of the firearms commonly referred to as an assault weapon.
Several states have similar measures, and congressional Democrats have also supported the concept. The challengers had argued that people have a constitutional right to own the firearms like the AR-15, which most gun owners use legally.
The case comes nearly three years after the high court handed down a landmark ruling that expanded Second Amendment rights and spawned challenges to firearm laws around the country.
Ten states and the District of Columbia have similar laws, covering major cities like New York and Los Angeles. Congress allowed a national assault weapons ban to expire in 2004.
Attorneys for Maryland contend the guns aren't protected by the Constitution because they're similar to military-grade weapons.
The law bans dozens of firearms — including the AR-15, the AK-47 and the Barrett .50-caliber sniper rifle — and puts a 10-round limit on gun magazines.
The high court also rebuffed a bid to overturn state bans on high-capacity gun magazines in a separate case out of Rhode Island on Monday. Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch said they would have heard the case. More than a dozen states have similar laws limiting the amount of ammunition a magazine can hold.
Thomas and Kavanaugh have previously expressed skepticism about assault weapon bans.
As an appeals court judge in 2011, Kavanaugh wrote a dissent saying that a similar measure in Washington, D.C., was unconstitutional. Thomas, meanwhile, dissented in 2015 when the Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to a municipal ban on AR-15-style weapons, writing that the 'overwhelming majority' of people who owned the weapons used them for lawful purposes like self-defense.
The high court in 2022 handed down a ruling that expanded gun rights and told lower-court judges they should no longer consider factors like public safety in deciding whether firearm laws are constitutional. Instead, they should focus on whether a law fits into the nation's historic tradition of gun ownership, the court said.
That led to a flurry of challenges to gun laws around the country, multiple restrictions struck down, and confusion among lower-court judges over what gun laws can stay on the books.
Since then, the Supreme Court has overturned a ban on rapid-fire gun accessories called bump stocks but upheld a law barring people under domestic-violence restraining orders from having guns and regulations on nearly untraceable ghost guns.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
28 minutes ago
- CNBC
Some lawmakers in both parties question the legality of Trump's Iran strikes
WASHINGTON — Several members of Congress in both parties Saturday questioned the legality of President Donald Trump's move to launch military strikes on Iran. While Republican leaders and many rank-and-file members stood by Trump's decision to bomb Iran's major nuclear enrichment facilities, at least two GOP lawmakers joined Democrats across the party spectrum in suggesting it was unconstitutional for him to bomb Iran without approval from Congress. "While President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional," Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, who usually aligns with Trump, said on X. "I look forward to his remarks tonight." Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., said in response to Trump's social media post announcing the strikes: "This is not Constitutional." Massie introduced a bipartisan resolution this week seeking to block U.S. military action against Iran "unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force against Iran" passed by Congress. In brief remarks from the White House on Saturday night, Trump defended the strikes but did not mention the basis of his legal authority to launch them without Congress' having given him that power. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., reacted in real time during a speech in Tulsa, Oklahoma, slamming Trump's actions as "grossly unconstitutional." "The only entity that can take this country to war is the U.S. Congress. The president does not have the right," Sanders told the crowd, which broke out in "no more war!" chants. Some Democrats called it an impeachable offense for the president to bomb Iran without approval from Congress. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., said Trump's move is "absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment." "The President's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers," she said on X. "He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations." Rep. Sean Casten, D-Ill., said on social media: "This is not about the merits of Iran's nuclear program. No president has the authority to bomb another country that does not pose an imminent threat to the US without the approval of Congress. This is an unambiguous impeachable offense." Casten called on House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., to "grow a spine" and protect the war powers reserved for Congress. Johnson said Trump respects the Constitution as he sought to lay the groundwork to defend his decision to act unilaterally. "The President fully respects the Article I power of Congress, and tonight's necessary, limited, and targeted strike follows the history and tradition of similar military actions under presidents of both parties," he said in a statement. Johnson's remarks, along with support for Trump's move offered by Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., indicate that Trump may have sufficient political cover to avoid blowback from the Republican-controlled Congress. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said Trump "failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East." But he stopped short of labeling the military action illegal or unconstitutional. House Minority Whip Katherine Clark, D-Mass., was more direct on the legal question. "The power to declare war resides solely with Congress. Donald Trump's unilateral decision to attack Iran is unauthorized and unconstitutional," said Clark, the No. 2 Democrat. "In doing so, the President has exposed our military and diplomatic personnel in the region to the risk of further escalation." Appearing Saturday night on MSNBC, Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., who co-authored the resolution with Massie, wondered whether the anti-war voters who support Trump would back his move. "This is the first true crack in the MAGA base," he said, noting that Trump's rise in the 2016 primaries was aided by his move to slam President George W. Bush for the Iraq war.
Boston Globe
32 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Senators Markey and Warren decry Trump's Iran strikes as unconstitutional
'Only Congress can declare war — and the Senate must vote immediately to prevent another endless war,' Warren said. Fellow Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey agreed, calling the strike 'illegal' for having lacked congressional approval. He said in a statement that Saturday's attack may set back Iran's nuclear ambitions, but added that not only can the country 'rebuild its program,' it 'will now be highly motivated to do so.' 'A diplomatic solution remains the best way to permanently and verifiably prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon,' Markey said. Chants of 'No More War' broke out at a Bernie Sanders rally in Tulsa, Okla., after the Vermont Senator read Trump's 'alarming' social media post announcing the strikes. 'The American people do not want more war, more death,' he said. Advertisement Massachusetts Peace Action, a Cambridge-based advocacy group, called for state leaders to speak out. The organization specifically called on Congressional leaders to pass the war power resolutions filed by Senator Tim Kaine and Representative Thomas Massie to prevent further US military action. 'We call on Massachusetts political leaders to speak out strongly against President Trump's lawless military adventure,' the organization wrote on Saturday night, shortly after the US attack on Iran. Brian Garvey, the organization's executive director, said an 'emergency event' was being planned outside Park Street Station at 1 p.m. Sunday, in protest of the strikes. Advertisement 'This direct attack by the United States on Iran a dramatic escalation by President Trump,' Garvey said in a phone call Saturday night. 'It's incredibly dangerous, it's unnecessary, and frankly, it's illegal.' Garvey said the founding fathers were explicit in giving Congress the power to declare war, adding that this is 'not how the government is supposed to work.' 'It is perhaps especially terrible because this is a president who ran saying he was going to seek peace,' he said. 'Back in 2016, he said the Iraq War was a big fat mistake. I fear that what he is leading us into could be even worse than that debacle and quagmire.' Garvey said he was 'fearful' for the US service members stationed in the Middle East, and 'outraged' that the strikes threatened their safety. Camilo Fonseca can be reached at
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump administration continues to eye Greenland over security concerns
The Trump Administration continues to monitor Greenland over its potential role in maintaining security for North America, according to testimony given by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. During his appearance last week before Congress' House Armed Services Committee, Hegseth was asked whether the Pentagon has developed plans to take Greenland — or Panama — by force, if necessary, The Associated Press reported. 'Our job at the Defense Department is to have plans for any contingency,' Hegseth repeated. While it isn't unusual for the Pentagon to develop 'what-if plans' for conflicts that may never materialize, Hegseth's reported handling of the questions regarding the Greenland issue prompted a direct inquiry from a Republican lawmaker. 'It is not your testimony today that there are plans at the Pentagon for taking by force or invading Greenland, correct?' said Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio. As Hegseth started to repeat his answer about contingency plans, Turner added emphatically, 'I sure as hell hope that is not your testimony.' 'We look forward to working with Greenland to ensure that it is secured from any potential threats,' Hegseth responded. Added Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., 'Speaking on behalf of the American people, I don't think the American people voted for President Trump because they were hoping we would invade Greenland.' One thing that's not unclear: President Donald Trump's interest in Greenland. 'We need Greenland for national security and international security,' Trump said from the Oval Office in March. 'So we'll, I think, we'll go as far as we have to go,' he continued. 'We need Greenland. And the world needs us to have Greenland, including Denmark. Denmark has to have us have Greenland. And, you know, we'll see what happens. But if we don't have Greenland, we can't have great international security.' Trump's focus on the massive, mineral-rich Arctic landmass — which is in an autonomous territory of Denmark — predates his return this year to the White House. The administration is reportedly concerned about growing Chinese and Russian military and commercial activities in the Arctic. 'Greenland is growing in importance as we find ourselves in a global competition with China and in a new technological revolution with regards to warfare,' Rebecca Pincus, director of the Wilson Center's Polar Institute and a former adviser to the U.S. Defense Department on Arctic strategy, told RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty earlier this year. 'So, Greenland is important from a missile-defense perspective, from a space perspective, and from a global competition perspective, in which shipping and maritime sea lanes are increasingly important,' she said. As a territory of Denmark, it is part of NATO, but Greenland is pursuing independence from Copenhagen and some experts fear that could open a door for Russia and China to gain a foothold in the country, RFE/RL reported. Last week, Denmark's Parliament approved legislation to allow new U.S. military bases on Danish soil, broadening an existing previous military agreement between the countries. Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen, in a response to lawmakers' questions, wrote that Denmark would be able to terminate the agreement if the U.S. tries to annex all or part of Greenland, The Associated Press reported. Meanwhile, Greenland Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen has called U.S. statements about the Arctic island 'disrespectful' — adding that Greenland 'will never, ever be a piece of property that can be bought by just anyone.' Political parties in Greenland, which has been leaning toward eventual independence from Denmark for years, recently agreed to form a broad-based new coalition government in the face of Trump's designs on the territory, reported The Associated Press. The Pentagon, meanwhile, is likely to shift Greenland from U.S. European Command to U.S. Northern Command, the military body responsible for defense of the American homeland, Mexico and Canada, according to Navy Times. The change itself only involves redrawing the maps of U.S. combatant commands and handing over responsibility for the military forces in Greenland, but it has caused angst among some in Denmark who think the administration is trying to draw the territory closer to America. An April poll conducted by the Deseret News/Hinckley Institute of Politics revealed about three-fifths — or 58% — of Utah voters somewhat or strongly oppose the idea of Greenland becoming a U.S. territory. Meanwhile, 42% said they somewhat or strongly support Greenland being annexed into the United States. Utah Republicans indicated slightly more support for Greenland becoming a territory of the U.S., with around 62% saying they somewhat or strongly support the idea, — compared to 13% of Democrats and 23% of independents. Utah voters were also asked what kind of pressure they would be comfortable applying on Greenland in pursuit of it becoming a U.S. territory. Overall, roughly 8 in 10 voters — or 78% — said they don't want the U.S. to apply any pressure on Greenland. At least 16% said they supported economic and political interventions, while 6% said they backed military pressure.
