Snope v. Brown
The Facts
Maryland's Assault Weapons Act bans the possession of semi-automatic rifles configured with detachable magazines and certain features, including the AR-15 and similar firearms, as well as large-capacity detachable magazines. Peter Snope and other Maryland gun owners challenged the law as a facial violation of the Second Amendment following the Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which replaced interest-balancing with a historical-tradition test. The Fourth Circuit upheld the ban, a decision the Supreme Court vacated and remanded after Bruen, and the Fourth Circuit upheld it again on remand.
The Application
Under Bruen, the government must justify Maryland's assault weapons ban through adequate historical analogues, but the AR-15 and similar semi-automatic rifles present a unique constitutional challenge as both commonly used for lawful self-defense and modern technology lacking direct historical precedent. The Fourth Circuit identified historical regulations of dangerous weapons as sufficient analogues to support the ban, but applying Bruen requires determining whether such historical traditions genuinely justify a categorical prohibition on the nation's most popular civilian rifle when Heller presumes Second Amendment protection for arms in common use. The case turns on whether historical analogue-matching can justify overriding the common-use presumption, or whether Bruen ultimately protects the AR-15 as a modern arm within the historical tradition of civilian firearm ownership.
The Conclusion
Pending decision. A ruling for the challengers would invalidate assault weapons bans in Maryland and similar states, applying Bruen to hold that semi-automatic rifles in common civilian use are constitutionally protected arms with no adequate historical analogue for categorical prohibition.
No circuit court data for this case.
Case Analysis
Overview
Snope v. Brown is a pending Supreme Court case challenging Maryland's Assault Weapons Act, which bans so-called assault weapons including AR-15-style semi-automatic rifles. The Fourth Circuit upheld Maryland's ban, applying intermediate scrutiny prior to Bruen. The Supreme Court granted certiorari for October Term 2025 to apply the Bruen historical-tradition framework to a state assault weapons ban for the first time.
Facts
Maryland's Assault Weapons Act bans the possession of semi-automatic rifles configured with detachable magazines and certain features, including the AR-15 and similar firearms, as well as large-capacity detachable magazines. Peter Snope and other Maryland gun owners challenged the law as a facial violation of the Second Amendment following the Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which replaced interest-balancing with a historical-tradition test. The Fourth Circuit upheld the ban, a decision the Supreme Court vacated and remanded after Bruen, and the Fourth Circuit upheld it again on remand.
Summary
Snope v. Brown is a pending Supreme Court case challenging Maryland's Assault Weapons Act, which bans so-called assault weapons including AR-15-style semi-automatic rifles. The Fourth Circuit upheld Maryland's ban, applying intermediate scrutiny prior to Bruen. The Supreme Court granted certiorari for October Term 2025 to apply the Bruen historical-tradition framework to a state assault weapons ban for the first time.
Issue
Whether Maryland's Assault Weapons Act, which bans semi-automatic rifles and large-capacity magazines, violates the Second Amendment under the historical-tradition test established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen.
Facts
Maryland's Assault Weapons Act bans the possession of semi-automatic rifles configured with detachable magazines and certain features, including the AR-15 and similar firearms, as well as large-capacity detachable magazines. Peter Snope and other Maryland gun owners challenged the law as a facial violation of the Second Amendment following the Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which replaced interest-balancing with a historical-tradition test. The Fourth Circuit upheld the ban, a decision the Supreme Court vacated and remanded after Bruen, and the Fourth Circuit upheld it again on remand.
Issue
Whether Maryland's Assault Weapons Act, which bans semi-automatic rifles and large-capacity magazines, violates the Second Amendment under the historical-tradition test established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen.
Rule
Under Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), the government must demonstrate that a firearm regulation is consistent with the historical tradition of firearm regulation in America at the founding. Arms in common use for lawful purposes are presumptively protected under District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). The government bears the burden of identifying historical analogues justifying a modern restriction.
Conclusion
Pending decision. A ruling for the challengers would invalidate assault weapons bans in Maryland and similar states, applying Bruen to hold that semi-automatic rifles in common civilian use are constitutionally protected arms with no adequate historical analogue for categorical prohibition.
Analysis
Under Bruen, the government must justify Maryland's assault weapons ban through adequate historical analogues, but the AR-15 and similar semi-automatic rifles present a unique constitutional challenge as both commonly used for lawful self-defense and modern technology lacking direct historical precedent. The Fourth Circuit identified historical regulations of dangerous weapons as sufficient analogues to support the ban, but applying Bruen requires determining whether such historical traditions genuinely justify a categorical prohibition on the nation's most popular civilian rifle when Heller presumes Second Amendment protection for arms in common use. The case turns on whether historical analogue-matching can justify overriding the common-use presumption, or whether Bruen ultimately protects the AR-15 as a modern arm within the historical tradition of civilian firearm ownership.
Conclusion
Pending decision. A ruling for the challengers would invalidate assault weapons bans in Maryland and similar states, applying Bruen to hold that semi-automatic rifles in common civilian use are constitutionally protected arms with no adequate historical analogue for categorical prohibition.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support