• The Supreme Court declined to hear challenges to state bans on assault weapons, including Maryland's AR-15 restrictions.
• The court's decision leaves in place regulations upheld by lower courts that prohibit certain semiautomatic rifles.
• Three conservative justices expressed disagreement and suggested a review of such laws may occur in future terms.
• The Maryland law was enacted following the Sandy Hook shooting and has been legally challenged since 2020.
• Gun rights advocates argue that these bans violate the Second Amendment, claiming that AR-15s are commonly owned firearms.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday chose not to review challenges to state bans on assault weapons, specifically Maryland's law prohibiting popular rifles like the AR-15. This decision maintains the legality of restrictions placed by lower courts, which have upheld measures designed to address gun violence, particularly in the wake of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, where the shooter was armed with an AR-15-style weapon, according to CBS News and Reuters.

The Maryland law, enacted in 2013, bans several semiautomatic weapons deemed excessively dangerous and unsuitable for public self-defense, which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit previously upheld. The court ruled that such firearms are "military-style weapons" designed for combat rather than civilian defense, thus lacking protection under the Second Amendment, according to LA Times and New York Times.

Despite the split decision, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch expressed their dissent and willingness to revisit the assault weapon ban argument. Justice Kavanaugh also indicated skepticism towards the legality of these laws, predicting that the court might address the issue "in the next term or two." He noted the critical importance of the matter for millions of law-abiding gun owners, as articulated in statements by Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh, according to HuffPost and Reuters.

Gun rights advocates continue to challenge these restrictions, arguing that the Second Amendment protects firearms widely owned by citizens, asserting that bans on such common weapons infringe upon constitutional rights. The legal landscape suggests growing frustration among gun owners, reflected in numerous ongoing lawsuits against various state restrictions, including those limiting ammunition magazine capacities, as noted by LA Times and New York Times.