Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Maryland Assault Weapons Ban

Monday, June 02, 2025

The Supreme Court on Monday turned away a challenge to Maryland's ban on so-called assault weapons, leaving intact a lower court ruling that upheld the law.

Posted by Corky at 11:33 PM | 24 COMMENTS | permalink

Breaking News: The Supreme Court said it wouldn't hear a Second Amendment challenge to a Maryland law enacted after Sandy Hook that bans semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15.

[image or embed]
-- The New York Times (@nytimes.com) June 2, 2025 at 11:17 AM

Comments

I have every confidence that they can find a way to make school shootings bigger, better, and more Beautiful!

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2025-06-02 04:27 PM

"Nearly 47,000 people died of gun-related injuries in the US in 2023, according to the latest available statistics from the CDC. While the number of gun deaths in the US fell for the second consecutive year, it remained among the highest annual totals on record."

The GOP and Trumpf must have noticed the slight decline, so they want to make up for it with this type of judicial action. Let's get to 50,000 KIA per annum in the US, since that's a nice even number. Machine guns, bump stocks, silencers, and ammunition vending machines can get us there. Woe betide the wounded and paralyzed with inadequate medical insurance under the Trumpf Reign of Terror.

Source: www.pewresearch.org

#2 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS at 2025-06-02 04:42 PM

SCOTUS has said multiple times they'll keep certain regulations in place, including certain types/classes of weapons used for (if I remember the phrasing correctly) criminal or unusual purposes.

The argument will, for ARs at least, eventually come down to the fact that they're not uncommon or unusual anymore.

#3 | Posted by jpw at 2025-06-02 05:39 PM

#2 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS at 2025-06-02 04:42 PM | Reply | Flag

No way! I thought crime was way down under Biden...

#4 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2025-06-02 06:17 PM

@#3 ... The argument will, for ARs at least, eventually come down to the fact that they're not uncommon or unusual anymore. ...

That seems to the the gist of the opinion of Justice Kavanaugh.

~AR-15s are oh so popular nowadays that we cannot ban them. At least not in this decision, let's save that decision for later.~

#5 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-06-02 08:22 PM

That's because if the specific language of the NFA and the recent SCOTUS decisions that have solidified this court's 2A stance.

The NFA and historic bans/laws specifically mention something along the lines of uncommon use or unusual weapons.

That language is explicitly cited by Palmetto State Armory as their rationale for making highly affordable ARs-if they're no longer uncommon or unusual, the vans are, in theory, easily challenged by the letter of the law.

#6 | Posted by jpw at 2025-06-03 12:31 AM

@#6

So a Justice on the Supreme Court seems to be saying that if something is popular, it does not matter the damage it may cause, but because it is popular it is OK?

imo, I would have thought that the Supreme Court would be above such ~popularity~ logic.

But that is just me.

#7 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-06-03 01:01 AM

Posted by jpw

The phraseology you're looking for is "dangerous and unusual" which come from Heller citing founding era English common law.

Elementary analysis is that any rifle is dangerous. The question is whether a class of semi-automatic 5.56 (or basically a .243) is unusual. I proffer it is not.

#8 | Posted by et_al at 2025-06-03 01:05 AM

@8 .. The question is whether a class of semi-automatic 5.56 (or basically a .243) is unusual. ...

Yup, as I noted in #7.

So, I ask once again, does popularity equate to legality?

#9 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-06-03 01:24 AM

No but it's a factor in the analysis of "unusual."

#10 | Posted by et_al at 2025-06-03 01:31 AM

@#10 ... it's a factor in the analysis of "unusual." ...

Yeah, that's a concern I have about this current Supreme Court.

Going back to Justice Alito's pulling in of medieval ~rulings~ to justify his opinion in a case.

imo, that was not A Good Day for the Supreme Court.

But it happened, and I now must abide by it.

So, I have to ask, what factors might a Justice (or Justices) dig out of, imo, irrelevant law to justify an opinion on this particular topic?

Asked differently, the Justices (or one or two of them) seem to be predisposed towards a decision, and they seem to have to scrap the bottom of the legal barrel to justify that opinion that then becomes the Law of the Land.

That is a concern for me.

#11 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-06-03 01:51 AM

"Elementary analysis is that any rifle is dangerous."

Do the courts really believe that?

Because gun nuts like Boaz and Willowby tell us an inanimate object isn't dangerous.

#12 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-06-03 04:53 AM

#8 thank you

#9 it's not so much popularity, but commonality. Again, it's a strategy to directly mitigate the wording of regulations that SCOTUS has said they'll maintain because they pass their own legal test they've established over the last three rulings (Heller, Bruen and Rahimi).

It's even a corporate strategy

palmettostatearmory.com

Putting guns into "common use" is an important legal defense established by the Supreme Court that safeguards the rights of the people against tyranny by prohibiting restrictions on firearms found to be "in common use". Putting any gun into "common use" protects against any attempt by the government to further infringe on the Second Amendment right of all Americans.

#13 | Posted by jpw at 2025-06-03 01:58 PM

Because gun nuts like Boaz and Willowby tell us an inanimate object isn't dangerous.

It isnt. How can something that cant move be dangerous?

The ONLY way a "gun" is dangerous is if it's in the hand of someone.

Again, the gun isnt the problem, it's the person pulling the trigger.

#14 | Posted by boaz at 2025-06-03 05:32 PM

Your a good guy with a gun till your not.The rest of the world thinks it is insane that police have to wait till kids are getting shot before they can impede some nuts freedom.

#15 | Posted by Scotty at 2025-06-03 06:59 PM

I thought crime was way down under Biden...

#4 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

No, you didn't.

You thought it was way up because thats what Trumpy and Fox News told you .. until someone showed you the facts and proved to you that Joe Biden was correct when he said that violent crime was near a 50-year low.

#16 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-06-03 07:10 PM

"The ONLY way a "gun" is dangerous is if it's in the hand of someone."

Obviously NOT the only way. All I need is one example to prove you wrong.

Guns are being mounted on AI drones.

AI drones are not "someone".

Yet.

#17 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-06-03 07:14 PM

Again, the gun isnt the problem, it's the person pulling the trigger.

#14 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Too many guns on the street are A problem but guns are not THE problem. It's the lack of rational gun laws and regulations that is THE problem.

#18 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-06-03 07:19 PM

AI drones are not "someone".

Yet.
#17 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

Which is still human action with human intention. Same as pulling the trigger.

Don't feed obtuse idiots like boaz. Arguing that guns are harmless if left lying untouched isn't an intellectually serious comment because it's chosen to sound harmless and true.

Meanwhile, normal, serious people recognize that guns weren't designed to project copper covered lead bits at 2,000+ feet per second because it makes the flowers grow.

#19 | Posted by jpw at 2025-06-04 12:34 AM

It's the lack of rational gun laws and regulations that is THE problem.
#18 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

Not entirely. Something did change and it's disingenuous to ignore that.

But any society concerned with its well being would better regulate deadly weapons

#20 | Posted by jpw at 2025-06-04 12:35 AM

Again, the gun isnt the problem, it's the person pulling the trigger.
#14 | Posted by boaz

So why give all people, including the problem people, the right to pull the trigger?

Explain why.

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-06-04 08:34 AM

"The ONLY way a "gun" is dangerous is if it's in the hand of someone."

And yet whenever a bill is brought up to implement common sense reforms to prevent mentally ill people from getting guns it is shouted down because something something shall not be infringed.

Taco in his first term on day 1 signed an EO revoking an Obama rule that people who are collecting SSDI because they have mental illness could not purchase a weapon.

#22 | Posted by Nixon at 2025-06-04 10:27 AM

Don't feed obtuse idiots like boaz. Arguing that guns are harmless if left lying untouched isn't an intellectually serious comment because it's chosen to sound harmless and true.

I agree it isn't intellectually serious. But you have to engage with them where they are at their level. And as I said only takes one example to prove him wrong.

An AI controlled weapon already can kill without human intervention. And as of now there is no law against it.

Also guns left untouched and unsecured are VERY dangerous.

To children that find them.

CDC Data (2003-2021): The CDC's National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS) identified 1,262 fatal unintentional firearm injury cases among children aged 0-17 years during this period.

Everytown Research: Everytown's #NotAnAccident Index has tracked over 3,200 unintentional shootings by children from 2015 to 2023, resulting in over 1,200 deaths and over 2,000 injuries.

#23 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-06-04 11:40 AM

Trust me, I know.

I'm extremely meticulous in how I store the guns I own.

I'm also a big proponent of what some DAs are finally having the guts to do-charge people for criminal actions committed with negligently stored firearms. I would love to see specific laws for exactly this.

#24 | Posted by jpw at 2025-06-04 08:56 PM

Drudge Retort Headlines

U.S. Inflation Accelerated in June (108 comments)

Ghislaine Maxwell Willing to Testify Before Congress (55 comments)

America Is Now a Police State (30 comments)

Ketanji Brown Jackson Is Starting to Make the Supreme Court's Puppeteers Nervous (27 comments)