Supreme Court denies challenges to state laws banning assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines
As a result, the two laws remain in effect. Litigation over similar bans across the country is ongoing and the issue is likely to return to the justices.
The court has a 6-3 conservative majority that has expanded gun rights but has shown a reluctance in recent months to take up a new case on the scope of the right to bear arms under the Constitution's Second Amendment.
It seems likely the court will take up the assault weapons issue soon, with three conservative justices saying they voted to take it up and another, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, saying he would like the justices to hear a case ion the issue in the next couple of years.
Four votes are needed for the court to hear a case.
The court in a major 2022 ruling expanded gun rights by finding for the first time that the right to bear arms extends outside the home.
That has led to a wave of both new restrictions being imposed in some states and court rulings that have struck down some longstanding gun laws. Both these developments have led to a flurry of appeals at the court asking the justices to clarify the scope of the 2022 ruling.
The Maryland law bans what the state calls 'assault weapons' akin to weapons of war like the M16 rifle as well as the AR-15. The measure became law in 2013 in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook school shooting, in which 20 children and six adults were killed the previous year.
That law was upheld by the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals before the Supreme Court's 2022. A new set of plaintiffs then filed a lawsuit, and the Supreme Court ordered the appeals court to take a second look at the issue. It reached the same conclusion in an August 2024 ruling.
"The assault weapons at issue fall outside the ambit of protection offered by the Second Amendment because, in essence, they are military-style weapons designed for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense," the court concluded.
The Rhode Island law, enacted just before the Supreme Court issued the 2022 ruling, prevents people from possessing magazines that contain more than 10 rounds.
Lower courts, including the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, upheld the ban, which was challenged by four gun owners and a firearms store called Big Bear Hunting and Fishing Supply.
The Supreme Court last July sidestepped multiple gun-related disputes soon after it issued a ruling that upheld a federal law that prohibits people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms.
In a case that did not directly address the right to bear arms, the court on March 26 upheld a Biden administration bid to regulate 'ghost gun' kits that can be easily assembled to make firearms.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
34 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Trump says he doesn't understand why his supporters are interested in 'boring' Epstein case
Donald Trump told reporters he doesn't understand why his supporters are so interested in the 'sordid, but boring' crimes of the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. 'He's dead for a long time,' the president said. 'I think, really, only pretty bad people, including fake news, want to keep something like that going,' he said. Trump's comments came after the justice department announced Epstein's death was a suicide and that, despite conspiracy theories to the contrary, there was no list of his clients to be made public
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
ICE may deport some migrants to ‘third countries' without assurances they won't be tortured, memo says
The Trump administration may deport immigrants to a country where they have no connections, in some cases with as little as six hours' notice and without assurances from the destination country that the deported individuals 'will not be persecuted or tortured,' according to a new memo from a top immigration official. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement memo, which says the policy is "effective immediately," was issued July 9 by acting Director Todd Lyons. It provides guidance to ICE employees on how to deport people to countries other than their country of origin and, 'in exigent circumstances,' even if there's a risk they will be persecuted or tortured there. 'If the United States has received diplomatic assurances from the country of removal that aliens removed from the United States will not be persecuted or tortured, and if the Department of State believes those assurances to be credible, the alien may be removed without the need for further procedures,' said the memo, which was first reported by The Washington Post and became public Tuesday in court filings. Lyons wrote that 'in all other cases' where the United States has not received those assurances, ICE must comply with several procedures, including that an ICE officer will serve the immigrant with a notice of removal that lists what country the federal government intends to deport them to in a language that the immigrant understands; will not affirmatively ask whether the person is afraid of being sent to that country; and will wait at least 24 hours before removing the person from the U.S. But 'in exigent circumstances,' Lyons wrote, the officer may deport the person in as little as six hours as long as the person is 'provided reasonable means and opportunity to speak with an attorney.' Immigrants who could be subject to the policy include those who have been given final orders of removal but in which a judge has found they would still be at risk of persecution or torture if deported from the Unites States, as well as those who come from countries where the U.S. lacks diplomatic relations or an established ability to send deportees to those countries, such as Cuba. Though ICE officers are told not to ask migrants if they are afraid of deportation to a third country, those who do state such a fear will will be referred for screening for possible protection within 24 hours, according to the memo. That screening could lead to the migrant being referred to immigration court for further proceedings or ICE possibly trying to send them to a different country than they one which they express fear of being deported to. Trina Realmuto, the executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, which is involved in a federal lawsuit challenging the deportations of migrants to countries other than their own, said in a statement to NBC News that the memo establishes a policy that 'blatantly disregards the requirements required by statute, regulation, and the Constitution.' She said the memo means there will be 'no process whatsoever when the government claims to have credible diplomatic assurances' for immigrants who are to be deported to third countries. Those assurances, she added, 'are unlawful' because they don't protect deportees from persecution or torture at the hands of non-state actors and because they violate legal requirements establishing that they be individualized and that migrants have the chance to review and rebut them. Realmuto also criticized the government for not publicly sharing what countries it has obtained diplomatic assurances from and what those countries got in exchange. The rest of the policy is 'woefully deficient,' she said. 'It provides a mere between 6- and 24-hours' notice before deportation to a third country, which is simply not enough time for any person to assess whether they would be persecuted or tortured in that third country, especially if they don't know anything about the country or don't have a lawyer,' Realmuto said. In a statement to NBC News on Tuesday, before the memo became public, the Department of Homeland Security said the agency has 'successfully negotiated nearly a dozen safe third country agreements.' 'If countries aren't receiving their own citizens, other countries have agreed that they would take them. It is incredibly important to make sure we get these worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens out of our country,' Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in the statement. 'That is why these agreements, which ensure due process under the U.S. Constitution, are so essential to the safety of our homeland and the American people.' The ICE memo follows a Supreme Court ruling in June that allows the Trump administration to deport immigrants to countries to which they have no previous connection. That ruling put on hold a federal judge's order that said convicted criminals should have a 'meaningful opportunity' to bring claims that they would be at risk of torture, persecution or death if they were sent to countries the administration has made deals with to receive deported migrants. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a dissenting opinion that the court was 'rewarding lawlessness' by allowing the administration to violate immigrants' due process rights. The fact that 'thousands will suffer violence in far-flung locales' is less important to the conservative majority than the 'remote possibility' that the federal judge had exceeded his authority, Sotomayor said.
BBC News
3 hours ago
- BBC News
US House Speaker Johnson calls for 'transparency' on Epstein, in departure from Trump
US House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson has called for the justice department to release all its files on sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, in a split with President Donald Trump, who has sought to draw a line under the matter."We should put everything out there and let the people decide," Johnson, an ally of the president, said in an came as Trump said Attorney General Pam Bondi should release "whatever she thinks is credible" on Epstein. At the weekend, the president urged supporters not to "waste time and energy" on Epstein. Bondi is under fire after she last week said there was no evidence Epstein kept a "client list" or was blackmailing powerful figures. Convicted paedophile Epstein's 2019 death in a US prison while awaiting federal trial was ruled to be a suicide, but many in Trump's Make America Great Again (Maga) base allege a about the Epstein files on Tuesday by US conservative commentator Benny Johnson, Speaker Johnson said he was in favour of "transparency".The Republican congressman from Louisiana added that he trusted President Trump and his team, and that the White House was privy to facts that he did not know. But he said Bondi "needs to come forward and explain it to everybody".Trump defends US Attorney General Pam Bondi over Epstein filesWho was Jeffrey Epstein?Trump is facing the backlash from his staunchly loyal political base over their suspicions details of Epstein's crimes are being withheld in order to protect influential figures, or intelligence Tuesday, he praised his attorney general's handling of the matter, saying: "She's handled it very well, and it's going to be up to her. Whatever she thinks is credible, she should release."Last week the president vented frustration in the Oval Office about his supporters' fixation on Epstein and implored them to move other Republican allies of the president are not letting go of the congresswoman Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a prominent voice in the Maga movement, told Benny Johnson in a separate interview on Tuesday: "I fully support transparency on this issue."She praised Bondi's work as attorney general, but said that leaders and elected officials should keep their promises to conservative Republican, Lauren Boebert of Colorado, said if more Epstein files were not released, a special counsel should be appointed to investigate the financier's John Kennedy of Louisiana said the voters expect more accountability."I think it's perfectly understandable that the American people would like to know who he [Epstein] trafficked those women to and why they weren't prosecuted," Kennedy told NBC other influential Republicans – including Senator John Thune and congressman Jim Jordan – deferred to President Trump on the an unrelated news conference on fentanyl on Tuesday, Bondi brushed aside questions about the controversy."Nothing about Epstein," she told reporters. "I'm not going to talk about Epstein."She said last week's memo declining to release further files on Epstein "speaks for itself".President Trump and members of his administration had previously vowed to release details of the investigation into the memo sent out last Monday by the Department of Justice, jointly released with the FBI, said there was "no incriminating client list" or evidence to suggest Epstein had blackmailed high-profile government's findings were made, according to the memo, after reviewing more than 300 gigabytes of Tuesday, House Democratic lawmakers tried unsuccessfully to force a vote on releasing Epstein pointed out the administration of President Joe Biden, a Democrat, also had access to the files, but did not release them.
