Recent rulings by federal courts across the United States have revealed a lack of consistency in interpreting gun control laws, despite recent Supreme Court decisions aimed at clarifying Second Amendment rights.

This divergence in judicial interpretation has become particularly evident in the wake of landmark cases such as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen in 2022 and Rahimi v. U.S. in 2024.

According to the Washington Examiner, three significant decisions handed down last week exemplify the ongoing struggle to achieve uniformity in gun control rulings. These cases, which span different jurisdictions and address various aspects of firearm possession and regulation, highlight the challenges courts face in applying the Supreme Court's guidance consistently.

Varied Rulings Across Federal Courts

The first notable ruling came from a federal judge in Kansas, who dismissed a case against a defendant charged with possessing a machine gun. This decision, made by U.S. District Judge John W. Broomes, argued that the government failed to demonstrate that regulating such weapons aligns with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation, as required by the Bruen and Rahimi decisions.

In contrast, two federal appeals courts upheld different gun control measures later in the same week. One court maintained bans on felons possessing firearms, while another affirmed the constitutionality of Maryland's handgun licensing law. These divergent outcomes underscore the complexity of applying recent Supreme Court precedents to specific gun control cases.

Legal experts suggest that the inconsistency in rulings may stem from the relative newness of the Rahimi decision, which was issued on June 21, 2024. Courts are still in the process of interpreting and applying this latest guidance from the Supreme Court, leading to variations in how they approach Second Amendment cases.

Supreme Court Guidance And Lower Court Interpretations

The Supreme Court's decision in Bruen established that gun regulations must be consistent with the nation's "history and tradition" of firearms laws. This standard has proven challenging for lower courts to apply uniformly, as evidenced by the recent conflicting rulings.

Andrew Willinger, executive director of the Center for Firearms Law at Duke Law School, offered insight into the situation:

It does not seem like Rahimi has clarified a whole lot. We've seen as well that these decisions were drafted, or at least they were early-stage drafts, before Rahimi, and then the judges kind of went back and maybe added or rewrote portions or what have you. But I think we're seeing, as you might expect, judges kind of grasping on to different pieces of Rahimi.

This observation suggests that the legal community is still grappling with how to integrate the Rahimi decision into their interpretations of Second Amendment rights and gun control measures.

Potential For Future Supreme Court Intervention

Given the ongoing inconsistencies in lower court rulings, some legal experts anticipate that the Supreme Court may need to revisit Second Amendment issues in the near future.

Challenges to state "assault weapons" bans, such as those in Maryland and Illinois, could potentially provide the high court with an opportunity to offer additional clarity on the scope of gun rights.

The Supreme Court has already agreed to hear arguments in October 2024 regarding an ATF dispute over the "Frame or Receiver" rule, which expanded the definition of a "firearm" to include weapon parts kits and partially complete frames or receivers. This case, Garland v. VanDerStok, may offer insights into how the court views current firearm regulations and could potentially impact future lower court interpretations.

Conclusion

Federal courts continue to grapple with interpreting gun control laws in light of recent Supreme Court decisions. The divergent rulings on machine gun possession, felon firearm bans, and handgun licensing laws illustrate the ongoing challenges in applying the "history and tradition" test established by the Bruen decision. As lower courts struggle to achieve consistency, the possibility of further Supreme Court intervention looms, potentially shaping the future landscape of Second Amendment jurisprudence in the United States.