Supreme Court won't review bans on assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines
Supreme Court won't review bans on assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines The court declined to hear challenges to Maryland's ban on AR-15s and Rhode Island's ban on powerful firearm magazines.
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Mexico takes on American gun companies at Supreme Court
Supreme Court justices expressed skepticism as Mexico attempted to hold American gun companies responsible for drug cartel violence.
WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court on June 2 preserved Maryland's ban on assault-style weapons and Rhode Island's ban on high-capacity magazines, declining to decide if they meet the high court's controversial bar for gun restrictions.
To not violate the 2nd Amendment, the court said in 2022, a restriction must be grounded in historic tradition. Lower courts have been struggling to apply this standard.
Gun rights advocates challenging Maryland's ban said it doesn't pass that test because AR-15s are one of the nation's most popular weapons, proof that there's a history of allowing them.
Maryland argues the ban is constitutional because the nation has long regulated exceptionally dangerous weapons.
But even some of the lower court judges who agreed the ban doesn't violate the 2nd Amendment said they need more guidance from the Supreme Court.
Chief Judge Albert Diaz of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the high court's 2022 ruling 'has proven to be a labyrinth for lower courts, including our own, with only the one-dimensional history-and-tradition test as a compass.'
Tasked with 'shifting through the sands of time,' Diaz wrote in a concurring opinion, lower courts 'are asking for help.'
The Supreme Court's most recent ruling on the 2nd Amendment – a 2024 decision upholding a gun control law intended to protect victims of domestic violence – offered little clarity, he said.
In that ruling, the Supreme Court said lower courts were misunderstanding their methodology. A gun regulation must have only a 'historical analogue' and not a 'historical twin' to be upheld, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.
His opinion did not say how that test should be applied to regulations like Maryland's or Rhode Island's.
Maryland banned AR-15s after Sandy Hook shooting
Maryland passed its ban after the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, one of the deadliest school shootings in the nation's history. The law prohibits dozens of firearms including the AK-47s and certain AR-15s.
Nine other states, the District of Columbia, and various cities have also restricted assault weapons.
The appeals court upheld Maryland's ban in 2017. But after the Supreme Court set the historical tradition test in its 2022 decision known as Bruen, the justices directed the appeals court to reconsider its ruling.
Writing for the majority, 4th U.S. Circuit Court Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, said the ban 'fits comfortably within our nation's tradition of firearms regulation.'
'Our nation has a strong tradition of regulating excessively dangerous weapons once it becomes clear that they are exacting an inordinate toll on public safety and societal wellbeing,' he wrote.
Gun rights groups said that if Maryland is allowed to ban 'the most popular rifle in the country,' then no firearm will be protected from regulation except handguns that were at the center of the court's 2008 decision expanding gun rights.
In that decision, known as Heller, the court said those rights do have limits – which are guided by the nation's tradition of banning 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'
While Maryland focuses on the 'dangerous' aspect of AR-15s, gun rights advocates say the weapon's popularity shows AR-15s are not 'unusual.'
Rhode Island made it a felony to have a large-capacity magazine
Rhode Island, in 2022, made it a felony to have a firearm magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
Four gun owners and a gun store challenged the ban, arguing the state is thumbing its nose at the court's 2022 decision.
A federal district judge declined to put the ban on hold, saying the challenge was unlikely to succeed.
The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed. A three-judge panel wrote that the ban doesn't burden the right to self-defense because a large-capacity magazines are not necessary outside 'Hollywood-inspired scenarios in which a homeowner would need to fend off a platoon of well-armed assailants without having to swap out magazines.'
The court also said the ban is consistent with past restrictions on particularly dangerous weapons used mostly for crime and mass violence such as sawed-off shotguns, machine guns and Bowie knives.
Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha told the Supreme Court it did not need to get involved at this stage as the record is still being developed while the challenge continues.
The ban, Neronha wrote in a filing, 'imposes a relatively mild restriction on a particularly dangerous weapon accessory.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
11 minutes ago
- The Hill
Updated Senate bill slashes wind and solar incentives – and adds a new tax
An updated draft of the Senate's megabill text slashes tax incentives for wind and solar energy – and adds a new tax on future wind and solar projects. The initial draft released by Senate Republicans earlier this month cut the credit for any wind and solar projects that did not 'begin construction' by certain dates, while the latest version bases incentives on when projects actually begin producing electricity — a much higher bar to clear. The first draft gave any project that began construction this year full credit, any project that began construction next year 60 percent credit and any project that began construction in 2027 20 percent of the credit, before they were phased out thereafter. The new legislation instead says that the credits will only apply to facilities that begin producing electricity before the end of 2027. In addition, it imposes a new tax on some wind and solar projects that are placed in service after 2027. The projects that will be taxed if a certain percentage of the value of their components come from China. The Democrats' 2022 Inflation Reduction Act included hundreds of billions of dollars in tax credits for low-carbon energy sources, including renewable energy. These subsidies were expected to massively reduce the U.S.' planet warming emissions. The GOP's cuts to the credits are expected to severely curtail those gains. If they pass, the cuts represent a win for the party's right flank, which has pushed for major cuts to the credits, and a loss for it's more moderate wing which has called for a slower phaseout. The renewables lobby slammed the changes as hampering the sector. 'In what can only be described as 'midnight dumping,' the Senate has proposed a punitive tax hike targeting the fastest-growing sectors of our energy industry. It is astounding that the Senate would intentionally raise prices on consumers rather than encouraging economic growth and addressing the affordability crisis facing American households,' Jason Grumet, CEO of the American Clean Power Association, said in a written statement. 'These new taxes will strand hundreds of billions of dollars in current investments, threaten energy security, and undermine growth in domestic manufacturing and land hardest on rural communities who would have been the greatest beneficiaries of clean energy investment,' he added.
The Hill
34 minutes ago
- The Hill
John Bolton writes off US strikes in Iran as Trump ‘campaigning‘ for Nobel Peace Prize
Former U.S. national security adviser John Bolton sharply criticized President Trump's Iran strategy and expressed broad skepticism about the prospect of making peace with Tehran in a Friday appearance on the Financial Times podcast Swamp Notes. Bolton made clear that he supported the American airstrikes last week that targeted three Iranian nuclear facilities but also suggested that Trump had personal motivations. 'I think what he's doing is campaigning for the Nobel Peace Prize, and he thought he'd get it in the Ukraine-Russia war. That didn't happen,' Bolton said in a response to a question about Trump's claims of victory in the aftermath of the strikes. 'But I think he's looking at the possibility that maybe he can get it here.' Several GOP lawmakers have made moves in recent days to nominate Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. The government of Pakistan also nominated him last week. Trump griped last week before the strikes that he would never get a Nobel Peace Prize, arguing that he deserved one for American peace efforts in Ukraine, Rwanda and a number of other conflicts. Bolton, a noted Iran hawk, was sharply critical of Trump's proposed tactics toward achieving peace in the country, referencing a CNN report that the United States was exploring helping Tehran access as much as $30 billion in funding for a civilian nuclear program. Trump has denied such reports. 'This is madness,' the former national security advisor said. 'I don't expect this to go anywhere, because to be truly satisfied that a country the size of Iran was really only engaged in peaceful nuclear activity requires an intrusive presence, whether it's the IAEA or foreign intelligence services, that the ayatollahs simply will never permit.' After first maintaining that the strikes were a one-time, targeted measure to disable key Iranian nuclear sites and help negotiate a ceasefire between Iran and Israel, Trump's rhetoric on Iran has heated up in recent days. He said Friday that he would consider bombing the country again if concerns about its nuclear program mounted. Bolton, a longtime skeptic of peace efforts with Iran, including the Obama-era nuclear deal, questioned whether Trump could effectively negotiate with the regime. 'When you're dealing with that kind of ideology, it's not like a Manhattan real estate deal,' he said. Even prior to the onset of strikes between Israel and Iran earlier this month, Bolton insisted that planned nuclear talks with the United States were 'fruitless.' He repeated similar lines on the FT podcast Friday, calling the Iranian government 'a group of medieval religious fanatics.'
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Trade talks morph into Trump's global bargaining table
President Donald Trump's trade talks aren't just about trade. They're about tech regulation, defense spending, critical minerals — even war and peace. Since slapping sweeping tariffs on nearly every country in April, Trump has turned narrow, trade-focused talks into kitchen-sink diplomatic forums. In closed-door negotiations, the president's top lieutenants have pressured foreign governments to significantly increase their military budgets, upend their tax systems and scuttle domestic legislation that could hurt U.S. businesses. The president has even leveraged U.S.-brokered ceasefires, such as the one between Israel and Iran, to induce other countries to buy more American goods It's part of a broader effort by Trump to use tariffs not only as a tool to boost domestic manufacturing and revenue, but as a lever to extract concessions on a host of unrelated issues. 'Access to the American market should cost you. Additional tariffs or additional levies — of course it makes sense to tie it to foreign policy. Why wouldn't we?' said former Trump adviser Steve Cortes. 'I get why countries are like, 'What the hell? This isn't the America we've been dealing with.' No, it isn't,' Cortes added. 'You just have to decide, is it worth it? If it is, well, play by our rules.' Trump sees a win-win: If countries refuse to bend to his will, he keeps his 'Liberation Day' tariffs in place, protecting domestic businesses and boosting U.S. coffers. Case in point: Trump on Friday ended trade negotiations with Canadain part because of its digital services tax on American tech companies slated to start being collected Monday, which he called a 'direct and blatant attack on our Country' in a post on Truth Social. The broad set of issues at play has frustrated other negotiations ahead of the president's self-imposed July 8 deadline to broker trade deals, as foreign leaders grapple with the fact that everything is on the table when negotiating with the United States. The ongoing uncertainty threatens to upend the global economy, confuse American industry, alienate U.S. allies and drive countries into the arms of China. 'It's unprecedented, if not completely dubious,' said one official from an Asian country, pointing to the Trump administration raising antitrust legislation in talks with South Korea and export controls in talks with China, as an example. The person, granted anonymity to discuss the negotiations, added: 'There is no indication it's working, and Trump will not reverse course.' But White House aides argue that the administration's kitchen-sink approach matches the scope of the problem. 'This whole thing is unprecedented. I mean, we are trying to basically reset what's a four or five decade-old status quo in which the United States was basically subject to free riding by a lot of our trading partners and other countries in the world, whether it be on trade, on defense and national security,' said a White House official, granted anonymity to share the administration's thinking. 'I push back on the idea that you can silo off trade,' the official added. 'They're all connected here.' At the NATO summit in the Netherlands this week, Trump threatened new tariffs on Spain after the country refused to increase its defense spending in line with other NATO allies — even though Spain is part of the European Union and doesn't negotiate trade deals independently. It's also been a hot topic in negotiations with Japan and South Korea, which have balked at the 5 percent across-the-board defense spending target the U.S. has set for its allies in Asia despite their exclusion from NATO. Trump this month said the U.S., which spends roughly 3.4 percent of its GDP on defense, would not abide by the 5 percent pledge. Trump has positioned Canadian investment in his 'Golden Dome' missile defense system for the United States as a way for the country to 'prove' itself amid ongoing trade negotiations — though the U.S. actually can't build the system without help from its northern neighbor. At the same time, the U.S. is pressuring South Korea to abandon antitrust legislative proposals aimed at regulating online platforms that are opposed by Google, Apple and Meta. It has also, like Canada, pressured the U.K. and EU countries to eliminate their digital services tax. On Tuesday, Trump added another demand, suggesting that China boost purchases of American oil as a thank you for the Israel-Iran ceasefire — an ask that comes as the president pushes Beijing to increase its imports from the U.S. And he's implied that he used the cudgel of trade wars to negotiate peace between India and Pakistan this spring, though India has disputed the suggestion. Trump took a similar approach during his first term when he threatened hefty levies to get Mexico to curb the flow of Central American migrants to the U.S., and tariffed China over 'unfair practices' in part related to the theft of U.S. intellectual property. In his second term, Trump has built on that strategy. He levied tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China in February aimed at curbing the tide of fentanyl and undocumented immigrants into the U.S. He also in April threatened 25 percent 'secondary tariffs' on any country that imports oil from Venezuela, a move he framed as targeting the country's authoritarian leader Nicolás Maduro and the Tren de Aragua gang. Foreign leaders are confronting the very real possibility that if they slow walk negotiations or abandon talks, Trump would happily slap a tariff large enough to effectively serve as an embargo with the U.S. — cutting off access to the world's largest economy. 'The president feels that tariffs are leverage — leverage for the relationship, of which trade is one component. That's why each of these negotiations has unique elements to it, which makes matters more unpredictable,' said one former White House official, granted anonymity to speak candidly about the president's approach. But giving into the president's demands on non-trade issues isn't a guarantee of tariff relief. Trump has shown no signs that he will heed French President Emmanuel Macron's calls for an end to the U.S.'s trade war with the European Union after NATO members agreed to hike defense spending to 5 percent of their gross domestic product. That unwillingness to significantly budge on his array of tariffs has bogged down trade negotiations and hindered the administration from crafting substantial trade deals. As the U.S. has set out to negotiate deals with more than 60 trading partners, world leaders have grown increasingly frustrated with what they say are unbalanced demands from the U.S. Other trading partners, including the European Union, have bristled at the terms of the UK framework and said they would not agree to a similar deal. That arrangement left a 10 percent so-called baseline tariff in place, while laying out a path to slash sector-specific tariffs. The bloc isn't alone, and Trump's numerous demands and 'do-it-or-else' approach have made it challenging for countries to corral the domestic political support they'll need in order to sell any deal at home. 'If the deal gets too imbalanced, it will get a very bad reception by most of our national public opinions,' said one European official granted anonymity to speak candidly about the state of negotiations with the United States. 'I don't think the EU side and countries can really accept a very imbalanced deal without risk of it backfiring.' But former Trump administration officials doubt the White House is about to change course. 'I see no evidence that the administration intends to reverse or scale back its use of this approach,' said Patrick Childress, a former U.S. Trade Representative assistant general counsel.
