Justices won’t hear challenges to gun ban

Gun rights groups vow to stay on message

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up three challenges to a federal ban on gun ownership for people convicted of nonviolent crimes, disappointing Second Amendment advocates who hoped a more conservative court would begin to chip away at the restriction.

By not taking the appeals, the nation’s highest court let stand a series of lower court rulings that prohibited people convicted of driving under the influence, making false statements on tax returns and selling counterfeit cassette tapes from owning a gun.

The decisions Monday, which were handed down without explanation, are the latest in a series of instances in which the Supreme Court has skirted Second Amendment questions. The high court last issued major guns rights rulings in 2008 and 2010, cases that struck down handgun restrictions in the District of Columbia and Chicago.

Gun rights groups vowed to continue to press the issue.

“While we are disappointed the Supreme Court chose to allow grossly improper lower court rulings to stand, (we) will continue our aggressive litigation strategy,” said Adam Kraut, senior director of legal operations at the Firearms Policy Coalition, which represented several of the petitioners.

Kraut said the group would “immediately move forward” with new challenges in lower courts “to address serious constitutional questions” about the extent of Second Amendment rights.

Several of the court’s conservatives signaled in recent years that they were interested in revisiting the issue, and it’s not clear why they chose not to do so. Four conservative justices have expressed a desire to address outstanding Second Amendment questions – enough to take a case but one vote short of the five needed to corral a majority. Many expected Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, seated last fall, to provide that fifth vote.

The court was considering the cases amid a spate of recent mass shootings.

Gun control advocates applauded the decision but noted the court has several cases pending it could use to address the ownership bans and other issues.

“If nothing else is clear from today’s decision, the court signaled that it’s not making a 180-degree turn where it’s going to take every gun case and rule for the gun lobby in every case,” said Adam Skaggs, chief counsel and policy director at the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.