Kolbe V Hogan Analysis

Just yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court elected not to hear an appeal from Kolbe v. Hogan, a case in which the Fourth Circuit ruled that semi-automatic rifles are not included in the Second Amendment as “arms.” Of the four circuit court rulings upholding bans on semi-automatic firearms, Kolbe v. Hogan stands out due to the Fourth Circuit’s reasoning behind its decision. While the Second, Seventh, and DC circuits all acknowledged that semi-automatic rifles are protected under the Second Amendment, the Fourth Circuit based their ruling on the belief that semi-automatic rifles are not protected as “arms” under the Second Amendment due to their common classification as military firearms. Dissenters were quick to point out the conflict between the Supreme Court’s actions in response to this case and another case–District of Columbia v. Heller–where the ruling stated that “the Second Amendment protects ‘firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose.’” Because many lawfully used semi-automatic firearms are present in the country today, this class of guns should thus be protected under the Second Amendment based on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Heller.

Following a refusal from the Supreme Court to hear an appeal from another assault-rifle-ban decision, Justice Clarence Thomas issued a dissent criticizing the Court’s inconsistency in reviewing decisions that clearly contradict previously established constitutional precedents. However, the Court’s refusal to review this decision came with no comment. According to the author, the Kolbe decision neglects the Supreme Court precedent governing Second Amendment cases to a far greater degree than those before it. Additionally, the Court passed on the chance to clarify for the lower courts how laws are judged under the Second