Supreme Court Passes on Maryland AR-15 Ban: What It Means for California Gun Owners

By The Davis Law Firm, www.calgunlawyers.com

On a quiet June morning in 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court sent ripples through the firearms community by declining to hear Snope v. Brown, a case challenging Maryland’s ban on AR-15 rifles. For California gun owners, who face some of the nation’s strictest firearms laws, this decision—or lack thereof—carries weight. At The Davis Law Firm, we’ve been fighting for Second Amendment rights in the Golden State for years, and we’re here to break down what happened, why it matters, and what it means for cases like Miller v. Bonta, which challenges California’s own assault weapon ban. This is a story of legal battles, judicial chess moves, and a fight for the right to keep and bear arms that’s far from over.

The Battle in Maryland: Snope v. Brown

Picture a Maryland gun owner, much like many of our clients in California, who cherishes their AR-15—a semi-automatic rifle prized for self-defense, sport, and its modular design. Maryland’s law (Md. Crim. Law Code Ann. §4-303(a)(2) (2025)) bans these rifles, labeling them “assault weapons.” David Snope and others challenged this ban, arguing it violates the Second Amendment. They leaned on a landmark case, District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), which guarantees the right to possess weapons in “common use” by law-abiding citizens. With an estimated 20–30 million AR-15s owned nationwide and legal in 41 states, the petitioners had a compelling case: AR-15s are as American as apple pie.

But the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Bianchi v. Brown (111 F. 4th 438 (2024)), slammed the door shut. It ruled that AR-15s are “dangerous and unusual” weapons, not protected “arms” under the Second Amendment, and placed the burden on challengers to prove otherwise—a move that clashed with New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen (2022), which requires the government to justify gun restrictions with historical analogues. The petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court, hoping for clarity. Instead, on June 2, 2025, the Court denied certiorari, leaving Maryland’s ban intact and sparking a firestorm of debate.

What Does “Certiorari Denied” Mean?

When the Supreme Court denies certiorari, it’s like a referee refusing to review a play—it doesn’t rule on the game but lets the last call stand. For Snope v. Brown, this means Maryland’s AR-15 ban remains law, and the Fourth Circuit’s precedent holds in Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. But here’s the key: a denial isn’t an endorsement. As Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote, “a denial of certiorari does not mean that the Court agrees with a lower-court decision or that the issue is not worthy of review” (Kavanaugh, p. 2). For California gun owners, this is a pause, not a defeat, in the broader fight over assault weapon bans.

The denial keeps the status quo in Maryland, but it’s a temporary setback for challengers. The real story lies in the Court’s internal dynamics, revealed through the justices’ responses, and what they signal for cases like Miller v. Bonta, which is challenging California’s assault weapon ban in the Ninth Circuit.

The Justices: Who Said What?

The Supreme Court’s nine justices played their parts in this drama, some speaking loudly, others staying silent. Here’s how they responded, based on the case filings and their Second Amendment track records:

• Justice Brett Kavanaugh: Kavanaugh penned a statement that reads like a beacon of hope for gun owners. He called the Fourth Circuit’s ruling “questionable,” arguing that AR-15s, with 20–30 million in circulation and legal in 41 states, are likely in “common use” and protected under Heller. He noted their similarity to handguns—both semi-automatic, both used for self-defense—and predicted the Court will tackle the AR-15 issue soon, citing cases in other circuits (Kavanaugh, pp. 1–3). His words are a roadmap for challengers.
• Justice Clarence Thomas: Thomas didn’t hold back, dissenting with a fiery rebuke of the denial. He labeled the Fourth Circuit’s conclusion that AR-15s aren’t “arms” as “surprising” and argued they’re clearly protected, given their widespread use for self-defense and target shooting. He criticized the court for flipping Bruen’s burden, requiring challengers to prove protection, and warned that Bondi v. VanDerStok (2025) could let the ATF reclassify AR-15s as machineguns, threatening owners’ rights (Thomas, pp. 4–11). His dissent is a battle cry for Second Amendment advocates.
• Justice Samuel Alito: Alito didn’t write but signaled he’d grant certiorari, aligning with Thomas. His votes in Heller and Bruen show a staunch defense of gun rights, suggesting he sees AR-15 bans as suspect.
• Justice Neil Gorsuch: Like Alito, Gorsuch favored review without writing. His Bruen majority opinion, demanding historical justification for gun laws, implies he’d scrutinize Maryland’s ban closely.
• Chief Justice John Roberts: Silent in the filings, Roberts likely voted to deny certiorari, as only three justices favored review. His Heller and Bruen votes back Second Amendment rights, but his Rahimi (2024) opinion, upholding a domestic-violence gun ban, shows he’s open to restrictions if historically grounded. Roberts may be waiting for a clearer circuit split, playing the long game as the Court’s institutionalist.
• Justice Sonia Sotomayor: No statement, but she likely voted to deny, per her Heller and Bruen dissents, which argue for state flexibility to combat gun violence, including banning “military-style” weapons. She probably supports Maryland’s ban.
• Justice Elena Kagan: Also silent, Kagan likely joined Sotomayor in denying certiorari. Her Bruen dissent, advocating for public-safety regulations, suggests she backs the ban.
• Justice Amy Coney Barrett: No statement, and her vote is unclear. Barrett’s Bruen vote and Kanter v. Barr (2019) dissent (as a Seventh Circuit judge) lean pro-gun, but her Rahimi concurrence emphasizes rigorous historical analysis. She may have denied certiorari to wait for a stronger case, making her a potential swing vote.
• Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson: Silent, Jackson likely voted to deny, aligning with Sotomayor and Kagan. Her Rahimi vote, supporting a gun restriction, and liberal philosophy suggest she views the ban as a valid public-safety measure.

The denial needed five votes, likely from Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, and either Barrett or Kavanaugh (despite his statement). Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented, while Roberts and Barrett hold the keys to future cases.

A Tale of Two Coasts: Implications for Miller v. Bonta and Beyond

For California gun owners, the Snope denial is a chapter in a larger saga, with Miller v. Bonta (No. 23-2979, pending in the Ninth Circuit) as the next battleground. Miller challenges California’s assault weapon ban, which, like Maryland’s, targets AR-15s, among other types of firearms. The district court struck down the ban, citing Heller’s “common use” test (699 F. Supp. 3d 956 (S.D. Cal. 2023)), but the Ninth Circuit is reviewing. Is Snope good or bad news for Miller and similar cases? Let’s weigh the scales, guided by the justices’ Second Amendment stances.

Why Snope Is Good News

• A Playbook for Victory: Kavanaugh and Thomas handed challengers a legal playbook. Kavanaugh’s estimate of 20–30 million AR-15s and their legality in 41 states bolsters the “common use” argument, while Thomas’s critique of the Fourth Circuit’s burden-shifting applies directly to Miller. Quote: “AR-15s appear to fit neatly within that category of protected arms” (Thomas, p. 5). California’s ban faces the same scrutiny.
• Four Justices on Deck: Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and likely Kavanaugh are poised to grant certiorari in a future case. With Barrett’s pro-gun leanings, only one more vote (e.g., Roberts) could secure a majority to strike down bans. Heller and Bruen anchor their logic.
• No Defense of the Ban: No justice wrote to support Maryland’s ban, leaving the Fourth Circuit’s reasoning vulnerable. In Miller, challengers can argue California’s ban lacks historical grounding, exploiting Snope’s silence.
• Circuit Split on the Horizon: Kavanaugh listed assault weapon cases in the First (Capen v. Campbell), Second, Third, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits (Kavanaugh, p. 3). If the Ninth Circuit rules against California’s ban in Miller, a split with the Fourth Circuit could force the Court’s hand, favoring challengers. But, the 9th Circuit has been doing everything possible to undermine case progression.
• Barrett’s Potential: Barrett’s Kanter dissent and Bruen vote make her a wildcard. If Miller presents strong “common use” evidence, she could join the pro-gun bloc, tipping the scales.

Why Snope Is Bad News

• Ban Stays for Now: The denial lets Maryland’s ban stand, emboldening courts like the Ninth Circuit to uphold California’s ban if they follow the Fourth Circuit’s “dangerous and unusual” logic. Miller’s fate hinges on the Ninth Circuit’s reading.
• Liberal Bloc’s Resistance: Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson’s likely support for regulations, per their Bruen and Rahimi stances, forms a three-vote hurdle. They may view California’s ban as a public-safety necessity, requiring Miller to sway both Roberts and Barrett.
• Roberts’s Caution: Roberts’s Rahimi opinion and silence in Snope suggest he’s wary of broad rulings. Miller must overcome his preference for historical analogues and institutional restraint.
• Delayed Justice: Kavanaugh’s “next Term or two” timeline means Miller and other cases face prolonged litigation, draining resources for California gun owners.

Miller v. Bonta Outlook

Miller is at a crossroads. The district court’s pro-gun ruling aligns with Snope’s “common use” arguments, but the Ninth Circuit could uphold California’s ban, especially if it echoes the Fourth Circuit. Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson are likely to support the ban, while Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh lean against it. Roberts and Barrett are the linchpins. Snope’s denial is moderately good news for Miller: Kavanaugh and Thomas’s statements provide ammunition, and the lack of pro-regulation voices weakens California’s case. A Ninth Circuit win could set the stage for Supreme Court review, especially if other circuits diverge.

The Road Ahead for California Gun Owners

At The Davis Law Firm, we see Snope v. Brown as a plot twist, not the end of the story. The Supreme Court’s pass leaves Maryland’s ban standing, but Kavanaugh and Thomas’s words light a path forward. For California gun owners, Miller v. Bonta is the next chapter, and we’re ready to fight alongside our clients to protect the right to keep and bear AR-15s—tools of self-defense and freedom. The justices’ silence, from Roberts’s strategic pause to Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson’s likely support for regulation, shows a divided Court. But with Barrett’s potential and a possible circuit split, the tide may turn.

If you’re a California gun owner facing the complexities of assault weapon laws, contact The Davis Law Firm at www.calgunlawyers.com. We’re here to defend your Second Amendment rights, one case at a time, as this story unfolds.