SCOTUS Sidesteps Major Second Amendment Challenges, Leaves Blue State Gun Bans Untouched
The Supreme Court of the United States has once again refused to wade into two key battles over the Second Amendment, turning away appeals that challenged sweeping anti-gun laws in Delaware and Maryland — a move that many gun rights advocates see as a troubling hesitation to defend constitutional freedoms under increasing attack.
The high court declined to hear a challenge to Delaware's draconian ban on so-called "assault-style" semiautomatic rifles and large-capacity magazines, as well as a separate appeal questioning Maryland's burdensome handgun licensing law. Both rejections allow lower court rulings that favor these gun restrictions to stand, effectively sidestepping the broader national debate over the right to bear arms.
In Delaware, a coalition of individual gun owners, firearms dealers, and prominent Second Amendment advocacy groups — including the Firearms Policy Coalition and the Second Amendment Foundation — challenged the state’s 2022 law banning popular semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15 and AK-47, along with magazines holding more than 17 rounds. While current owners are permitted to keep their firearms under strict grandfathering clauses, new purchases are outlawed — a regulation critics say directly infringes on constitutional rights.
The plaintiffs had asked the courts for a preliminary injunction to block the law while the case proceeds. However, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s refusal, dismissing the argument that any violation of Second Amendment rights qualifies as an “irreparable injury.”
"Preliminary injunctions are not automatic," the court wrote, arguing that such relief is reserved for “very special occasions.” The judges concluded, “This is not a strange case.”
Meanwhile in Maryland, a challenge led by gun rights group Maryland Shall Issue targeted the state’s 2013 handgun licensing mandate, which forces would-be purchasers to undergo fingerprinting, safety training, and a full background check before they can lawfully buy a handgun — a process critics say can take over a month and acts as an unconstitutional deterrent.
Maryland defended its rules by citing "significant improvements to public safety," and the Richmond-based 4th Circuit sided with the state, brushing off Second Amendment concerns.
Despite the Supreme Court’s conservative 6-3 majority and its past defense of gun rights in landmark rulings — District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), McDonald v. Chicago (2010), and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) — the justices’ refusal to hear these cases marks a pause in what many had hoped would be a more aggressive rollback of overreaching state-level gun restrictions.
Notably, the Court has not yet ruled on other pending appeals, including challenges to Maryland’s broader assault weapons ban and Rhode Island’s high-capacity magazine prohibition.
The legal landscape for gun rights remains fluid. Just last year, the Court struck down the federal bump stock ban, and a high-stakes decision is expected later this month on the Biden administration’s regulation of so-called "ghost guns" — untraceable firearms that Democrats have used as a scapegoat for rising crime.
And on March 4, the justices are set to hear a politically charged case involving gunmakers Smith & Wesson and Interstate Arms, who are seeking to dismiss a lawsuit from the Mexican government. The suit accuses U.S. manufacturers of fueling cartel violence by enabling illegal firearms trafficking into Mexico.
As states tighten restrictions on lawful gun ownership under the guise of public safety, constitutional conservatives warn that the judiciary’s reluctance to intervene sends a dangerous signal.