The U.S. Supreme Court has distributed a couple of important Second Amendment cases for conference this Friday, and all eyes will be watching to see whether oral arguments are scheduled as a result.
According to SCOTUSblog, the cases of Snope v. Brown and Maryland Shall Issue v. Moore both challenge Maryland’s restrictive gun control laws.
Snope is a case brought by the Second Amendment Foundation, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the Firearms Policy Coalition, and private citizen, David Snope. It challenges Maryland’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” and this would be the third time the case has been brought to the high court for review.
SAF, CCRKBA and FPC contend the ban is unconstitutional on the grounds that the Second Amendment makes no distinction between the types of “arms” it protects. The modern semiautomatic rifle, epitomized by the AR-15 and its clones, is the most popular rifle in America. Millions are owned and used b y law-abiding citizens for hunting, competition, recreation, predator control and personal and home defense.
According to a SAF news release Tuesday, “SAF sought cert after the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled en banc that the modern semiautomatic rifles banned by Maryland fall outside the protection of the Second Amendment because they are too similar to military arms. SAF and its partners contend this reasoning “is becoming a commonplace misapplication” of Supreme Court precedents established by the 2008 Heller ruling, 2010 McDonald decision and 2022 Bruen decision.
“Snope provides the Supreme Court with an excellent vehicle to correct the widespread misapplication of the Court’s precedent regarding these firearms and the Second Amendment, itself,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The case is on appeal from final judgment with an en banc decision of a circuit court. Moreover, the specific type of firearm in question is commonly owned across the country, placing it well within the scope and protection of the Second Amendment. By granting cert in Snope, the high court can help settle the matter once and for all.”
Moore challenges Maryland’s licensing requirement to even own a gun. As noted by SCOTUSblog, “Moreover, they contend that Justice Thomas’s footnote in Bruen was limited to licenses to carry guns in public and does not apply to laws, like Maryland’s, which require a license to own a gun at all. But in any event, the challengers argue that the state’s requirements are “abusive” because they collectively impose an excessive delay: up to a month for a background check to obtain a license, up to a week for a second background check to purchase a gun, and additional time to complete a firearm-safety course.”
This case should have the attention of gun rights activists and anti-gunners in Oregon and Washington, where the effort is ongoing to require people to get a permit to purchase from the police prior to being able to buy a gun.
If the Court grants certiorari in these cases, the outcome could have a devastating effect on gun control in the United States. Several states have banned so-called “assault weapons,” and a ruling that modern semi-autos are protected by the Second Amendment would almost certainly nullify those bans.
Another case up for consideration is Gray v. Jennings, involving SAF, FPC and others, challenges a ban on so-called “assault weapons” and “large-capacity magazines” in Delaware. There is no small irony in this case, as it seeks to undo a gun control law in the home state of departing President Joe Biden, a career gun control proponent who leaves the White House Jan. 20 as former President Donald Trump returns for a second term.
