Gun Control Backers Claim Modest Supreme Court Gains This Term

Both sides of the gun debate agree that the Supreme Court’s actions this term were a mixed bag, but gun control advocates are claiming a small victory.

The justices upheld federal regulations for build at-home ghost gun kits, refused to give gun manufacturers broad immunity from civil suits, and turned away constitutional challenges to state bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

Those decisions left advocacy groups relieved and quelled some concern that the court’s conservative majority would eviscerate gun control measures.

“All things considered it certainly could have gone worse,” said Adzi Vokhiwa, vice president of policy at Community Justice, a nonprofit working to reduce gun violence in Black, Hispanic, and Latino communities.

The trend the last few years “has been to uphold gun safety laws and to acknowledge that it is not only responsible and needed but also lawful to prevent unfettered access to firearms,” she said.

Last term, the court upheld a federal law that prohibits people from owning guns if they have a domestic violence restraining order.

Bill Sack, director of legal operations at the Second Amendment Foundation, noted the two cases the court heard weren’t direct Second Amendment challenges.

“There were plenty of silver linings” to everything the court did this term, he said.

Door Open

Although the court threw out the Mexican government’s attempt to hold US gun manufacturers liable for allegedly funneling firearms to violent drug cartels, it didn’t give the companies everything they sought.

“It’s really important to note the court refused to go along with the gun industry’s efforts to leverage this case into a very broad ruling that would provide them with even more unprecedented protection than they currently enjoy,” said David Pucino, legal director and deputy chief counsel at the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

Everytown for Gun Safety joined the Giffords Law Center and other gun violence prevention groups in supporting Mexico’s case. Everytown for Gun Safety is backed by Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg Law is operated by entities controlled by Michael Bloomberg.

The court refused to consider gun manufacturers’ claim that they can’t be the “proximate cause” of Mexico’s injuries, which is legally required to hold them liable for the criminal misuse of their products under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

Instead the justices said Mexico hadn’t plausibly alleged the companies had aided and abetted gun dealers in unlawfully selling firearms to Mexican traffickers.

“The court did leave the door open for liability in future cases by Mexico and others that meet the new test that they announced,” said Mexico’s attorney Jonathan Lowy, founder and president of Global Action on Gun Violence.

Mexico already has another case in Arizona. There, it’s trying to hold Arizona gun dealers responsible for allegedly participating in the trafficking of military-style weapons and ammunition to Mexican drug cartels. The lawsuit survived the gun dealers’ initial attempt to get it dismissed and is now in the discovery stage.

Lowy’s group is also planning to ask the Supreme Court this summer to hear its constitutional challenge to the PLCAA, the federal law that bars certain civil suits against the gun manufacturers.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision Lowy is appealing reversed a lower court ruling that held the law unconstitutional. The dispute stems from a lawsuit he brought on behalf of parents seeking to hold a gun manufacturer and retailer liable after their 13-year-old son was accidentally killed when his friend fired a gun that was allegedly missing safety features.

The court didn’t address in the Mexico case whether PLCAA is constitutional or not, Lowy said.

Mixed Bag

Despite the win in the Mexico case, not all gun rights groups were claiming victory this term. The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action called it a mixed bag for Second Amendment rights.

Even though Executive Director John Commerford applauded the court for rejecting Mexico’s lawsuit, he said in statement that NRA-ILA is “deeply concerned by the court’s refusal to rein in overreaching federal regulations on so-called ‘ghost guns’ and its unwillingness to hear key cases involving bans on some of the most popular arms in the nation.”

In a 7-2 ruling, the court upheld those regulations of ghost gun kits. In doing so, the court rejected arguments from gun manufacturers that the agency went too far in regulating these weapons parts kits as “firearms.”

Because many of these kits can be easily converted to functioning “firearms,” they can be regulated under the plain text of the Gun Control Act of 1968, the court said.

The court also turned away challenges to state gun regulations, including Washington, D.C., and Rhode Island bans on high-capacity magazines and Maryland’s so-called assault weapons ban.

The court turned away many cases on the right to carry firearms prior to its landmark 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller and 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, expanding that right outside of the home, said George Washington University Second Amendment scholar Robert Cottrol.

The denials have no precedential value, Cottrol said. It “just means that they are considering the question at this time.”

With similar challenges making their way to the court, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said in a statement that the justices “should and presumably will address the AR–15 issue soon, in the next Term or two.”

NRA-ILA is “encouraged that the Court continues to hear firearm-related cases and hope to strengthen Second Amendment protections in the coming term,” Commerford said, citing a case now pending before the court challenging Florida’s law banning 18 to 20 year-olds from purchasing guns.

The court could take one or more gun cases next term. Lowy isn’t willing to predict. Regardless, he said, this term showed the court can be thoughtful and reasonable on issues involving firearms.

“Some of these decisions should take down the temperature of people on both sides,” he said.