Weatherford, TX — The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent refusal to hear challenges to Maryland’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” and Rhode Island’s ban on magazines over ten rounds is a grave misstep that leaves unconstitutional restrictions on law-abiding gun owners in place — and contradicts the very standards the Court laid out in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

Despite repeated invitations to clarify and enforce its own precedent, the Court declined to review lower court decisions that openly defy Bruen, which clearly established that any modern firearms regulation must align with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

Laws in Defiance of Bruen

The laws at issue are sweeping and draconian.

Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act bans commonly owned semi-automatic rifles — mislabeled as “assault weapons” — that are functionally identical to other legal firearms but feature cosmetic differences.

Meanwhile, Rhode Island’s law criminalizes possession of magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds, even though tens of millions of such magazines are in common use across the United States for lawful purposes like self-defense and competitive shooting.

These laws are not only ineffective at preventing crime — they also clearly violate the Constitution.

If there is no historical precedent for banning a class of firearms or accessories that are commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens, such bans should be struck down under Bruen.

Yet the lower courts have been allowed to redefine “history and tradition” to fit their ideological ends — with the Supreme Court standing idly by.

Why SCOTUS Must Step In

The longer SCOTUS waits, the more emboldened anti-gun judges and lawmakers become.

The 4th and 1st Circuits are now openly ignoring the Court’s guidance, upholding bans that should be dead on arrival under a faithful reading of the Constitution.

Worse still, this judicial defiance signals to other states that they too can pass extreme restrictions and survive constitutional scrutiny by simply playing jurisdictional roulette.

If this trend continues, Americans’ rights will depend not on the Constitution, but on their zip code.

NFGR’s National Strategy to End These Bans

Thankfully, groups like the National Foundation for Gun Rights (NFGR) are fighting back.

As the legal arm of the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR), NFGR has filed seven lawsuits in five federal appellate circuits to create a circuit split and give the Court another opportunity to do its job.

Their legal strategy is clear: force the Court to reckon with its own precedent by flooding the lower courts with cases that challenge the constitutionality of “assault weapon” and magazine bans.

These suits span Colorado, Massachusetts, Washington, Illinois, and Connecticut — with more likely to come.

By generating multiple legal battles across the country, NFGR aims to increase the likelihood that at least one of these cases will finally force the Court to act and put an end to this patchwork of unconstitutional laws.

The Stakes Are Too High to Ignore

Millions of law-abiding Americans are being treated like criminals for owning firearms and magazines that are overwhelmingly used for legal purposes.

The founders never envisioned a system where state legislatures and lower courts could override the plain text of the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court had a duty to take up these cases.

Its failure to do so only emboldens anti-gun politicians and activists who want to dismantle the Second Amendment, piece by piece.

But the fight isn’t over.

With organizations like NFGR leading the charge, and with growing pressure from lower court challenges, the Supreme Court may soon have no choice but to reaffirm that constitutional rights do not end where state lines begin.