The legal arm of the National Rifle Association asked the Supreme Court on Friday to take up a new case that could expand gun rights for owners of AR-style rifles, challenging federal restrictions on short-barreled versions of the popular firearm.
In a petition filed Friday, the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action urged the high court to hear Rush v. United States, a case targeting the National Firearms Act of 1934. That law requires registration and a $200 tax for rifles with barrels shorter than 16 inches, a violation punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
Recommended Stories
- King County Executive bets on new sales tax proposal to balance upcoming budget
- Enrollment up 2.3% at Tennessee's colleges and universities
- FAA to pause hundreds of passenger flights from Reagan during Trump military parade
The case stems from the conviction of Jamond M. Rush, who pleaded guilty to possessing an unregistered short-barreled AR-15 and was sentenced to 30 months behind bars.
A federal appeals court upheld his conviction, citing the Supreme Court’s precedent dating back to a 1939 decision. Judge Joshua Kolar wrote for the panel that the history and tradition of the nation’s gun laws supported their conclusion.
“We decline to make a step one finding that short-barreled rifles are ‘arms’ protected by the Second Amendment’s text—at least not on this occasion under the theories presented by Rush,” Kolar wrote. “The record does not show such firearms are commonly used by ordinary, law-abiding citizens for a lawful purpose like self-defense.”
TOP CASES THE SUPREME COURT WILL DECIDE AT THE END OF THIS TERM
But the NRA argues the lower court misread United States v. Miller, the 1939 case, and ignored newer precedents that instructed lower courts to follow a history and tradition test for gun control laws. According to the group, short-barreled rifles are widely owned for lawful purposes and therefore deserve protection under the Second Amendment, as clarified by District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
“The National Firearms Act imposes burdens on law-abiding gun owners that have no grounding in the text, history, or tradition of the Second Amendment,” said Doug Hamlin, NRA executive vice president and CEO. “We’re hopeful that the Supreme Court will use this opportunity to reaffirm that right.”
The petition also highlights a broader legal clash in the federal courts over how to handle bans and restrictions on commonly owned firearms, including AR-15s and standard-capacity magazines. The NRA says that the conflict requires resolution from the Supreme Court.
Gun rights advocates are closely watching how this case could force the Supreme Court to reconcile its landmark Bruen ruling with its earlier decision in Miller. That 1939 case upheld federal restrictions on certain firearms such as machine guns and sawed-off shotguns, including short-barreled rifles, setting a precedent that not all weapons are covered by the Second Amendment. But under the Bruen framework, which is focused on historical tradition, that precedent may now be vulnerable. Whether the 1934 National Firearms Act can survive modern constitutional scrutiny is an open question.
The timing is notable. Just this week, the high court declined to hear a challenge to Maryland’s AR-15 ban — but several justices signaled they are ready to confront the issue soon. Justice Brett Kavanaugh called Maryland’s law “questionable” and predicted the Supreme Court “presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon, in the next Term or two.”
In the same decision, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch said they would have taken the case immediately.
“The NRA is proud to stand at the forefront of this fight to restore our freedoms and ensure that peaceable citizens are not treated like criminals for owning commonly used firearms,” said NRA-ILA Executive Director John Commerford.
If granted, Rush v. United States would give the Supreme Court an opportunity to clarify whether common firearms can be taxed and regulated as if they were dangerous or unusual — a distinction now under heavy scrutiny in the wake of Bruen.