Supreme Court justices debate constitutionality of AR-15 bans

On June 2, 2025, a divided Supreme Court of the United States decided not to hear a case challenging Maryland's ban on assault weapons, specifically targeting AR-15 rifles. In their refusal, Justice Clarence Thomas expressed his dissent, pointing out that AR-15s are clearly considered "arms" under the Second Amendment's plain text and are entirely legal in many states across the country. He emphasized the significance of the question regarding the government’s authority to impose such bans, noting its importance to millions of lawful AR-15 owners throughout the nation. Justice Thomas argued that AR-15s, which are among the most popular rifles in the United States, should not be banned without significant justification that aligns with the historical context of firearm regulation. He highlighted that there is a lack of historical regulation to support Maryland's stance on banning these firearms, making it questionable whether the law is constitutional. This assertion is rooted in the Supreme Court's 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller decision, which established fundamental rights related to owning firearms that are commonly used for self-defense. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, while agreeing with the majority decision to not hear the Maryland case for now, acknowledged the likelihood that the Supreme Court will need to address the constitutionality of AR-15 bans in the near future, within the next term or two. He noted that AR-15s are legal in 41 states and held by an estimated 20 to 30 million Americans. The implications of the Court’s inaction on this issue and the divided opinions among justices reflect a critical ongoing debate surrounding the rights of gun owners and the boundaries of state authority in regulating firearms. The reactions from justices such as Thomas, Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, and Samuel Alito illustrate a friction within the Court about how existing laws align with contemporary interpretations of the Second Amendment. Kavanaugh's cautious view points to a broader concern about the legal implications of these firearm regulations, signaling a potential shift in the judicial outlook toward gun rights in forthcoming decisions. This evolving discussion underscores the ongoing complexities that characterize America's firearm legislation and the cultural importance of weapons like the AR-15 within society.