The U.S. Supreme Court will consider hearing three cases that gun rights advocates consider pivotal, including one they say would set the Second Amendment on par with the rest of the Bill of Rights.
On Jan. 6, the court set the cases for a Jan. 10 conference.
The cases include Snope v. Brown and Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island, which, respectively, challenge Maryland’s ban on certain semiautomatic rifles, or so-called “assault weapons,” and Rhode Island’s ban on ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
In the third case, Gray v. Jennings, the plaintiffs want the Supreme Court to overturn a decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals refusing to block Delaware’s ban on perceived assault weapons while the ban is being disputed in court.
The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), a party in the cases, called the actions significant to the gun debate.
“Snope has the potential to serve as the basis of overturning bans on constitutionally protected arms across the country, while Gray seeks to prevent courts’ unequal treatment of Second Amendment protected rights,” FPC President Brandon Combs wrote in an email to The Epoch Times.
“All of the cases could change the legal landscape for generations to come.”
During the conference, the justices will decide whether to schedule a time to hear each case.
Gray v. Jennings is the combination of three cases first brought before the U.S. District Court in Delaware on Nov. 16, 2022, challenging the state’s newly implemented ban on so-called assault weapons.
The plaintiffs in the case asked the court to block enforcement of the new law.
The court ruled that the plaintiffs —DJJAMS, LLC, the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Second Amendment Foundation, William Taylor, and Gabriel Gray—failed to show they would suffer irreparable harm without the injunction.
The plaintiffs appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the decision based on its conclusion that the ban does not cover all firearms.
According to the Third Circuit, the ban does not infringe on the Second Amendment.
“[The District Court] refused to presume that all Second Amendment harms are irreparable. Rather, because Delaware’s laws ‘regulate only a subset of semi-automatic weapons,’ the challengers ‘retain ample effective alternatives,’” the Third Circuit decision states.
In their petition to the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs counter that irreparable harm is not limited to financial or physical damage.
They contend that the high court has held that constitutional rights are often intangible.
For example, the court has held that the “loss of First Amendment freedoms for even minimal periods of time unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”
That logic should apply to all of the Bill of Rights, the plaintiffs’ petition states.
“And by treating violations of the First Amendment as inherently irreparable but not violations of the Second, the [appellate court] decision demotes the right to keep and bear arms to ‘a second-class right subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees,’” the petition states.
According to Second Amendment advocates, a decision in this case would address what have become known as “Bruen reaction laws.”
The June 2022 Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen changed the test for determining whether a gun law complies with the Second Amendment.
Under the Bruen standard, new gun laws must comply with the text of the Second Amendment and lawmakers must be able to show that a similar law was in effect at the time of the amendment’s ratification in 1791.
In response, several states passed new gun control laws, many of which defied Bruen.
Second Amendment advocates say a favorable ruling in Gray would firmly establish the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental right.
“The lower courts have treated the right to keep and bear arms as a second-class right despite the Supreme Court repeatedly declaring it to be on par with the other fundamental rights,” Mark Smith, a constitutional lawyer, wrote in an email to The Epoch Times.
“The Supreme Court should hear Gray to ensure that its rulings are respected and enforced by the lower courts.”
The plaintiffs also hope the Supreme Court will reverse bans instituted in several states on so-called assault weapons.
“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 Adam Kraut, executive director of The Second Amendment Foundation.
Eleven states—Illinois, California, Connecticut, Washington, New York, Maryland, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts, and New Jersey—and the District of Columbia ban semi-automatic rifles they consider “assault weapons.”
Most of the bans focus on features that some lawmakers say make the guns “dangerous and unusual.”
These include detachable magazines, flash suppressors, barrel shrouds, and pistol grips.
Proponents of the bans say the features make the rifles more suited to military service, removing them from the Second Amendment’s protection.
Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown praised the Fourth Circuit’s decision in an Aug. 6 statement and vowed to continue defending the bans.
“Access to weapons of war that have no place in our communities causes senseless and preventable deaths.
“We will continue to vigorously defend common-sense gun safety laws that protect Maryland residents,” the statement reads.
