A divided Supreme Court rejected on Monday to hear a challenge to a state ban on assault weapons, which refers to semiautomatic rifles that are popular among gun owners and have also been used in mass killings.

As is customary, the majority declined to explain its reasons for rejecting the case involving firearms such as the AR-15. However, three conservative justices on the nine-member court openly expressed their disagreement, while a fourth indicated he is uncertain that such restrictions are constitutional.

Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch indicated they would have considered the case, while Justice Clarence Thomas wrote separately, saying the statute certainly violates the Second Amendment, the Associated Press reported.

“I would not wait to decide whether the government can ban the most popular rifle in America,” Thomas wrote. “That question is of critical importance to tens of millions of law-abiding AR–15 owners throughout the country.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was appointed by President Donald Trump concurred with the decision to dismiss the case now, but he is doubtful that such prohibitions are constitutional and anticipates that the court will consider the matter “in the next term or two.”

The Maryland legislation was enacted following the 2012 tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, which murdered 20 children and six adults. The gunman was equipped with an AR-15, a type of rifle known as an assault weapon.

Several states have comparable legislation, and congressional Democrats have also backed the idea. The challengers contended that citizens had a constitutional right to acquire rifles such as the AR-15, which the majority of gun owners use legally.

The lawsuit comes almost three years after the Supreme Court issued a historic decision that broadened Second Amendment rights and sparked challenges to gun controls around the country.

Ten states and the District of Columbia have comparable regulations, which apply to big cities such as New York and Los Angeles. Congress permitted a nationwide assault weapons prohibition to expire in 2004.

Maryland’s attorneys argue that the firearms are not constitutionally protected since they are akin to military-grade weapons.

The law prohibits dozens of guns, including the AR-15, the AK-47, and the Barrett.50-caliber sniper rifle, and limits gun magazines to ten rounds.

In a second case from Rhode Island, the Supreme Court denied a request to remove state limits on high-capacity rifle magazines on Monday. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch stated they would have heard the case. More than a dozen states have identical restrictions restricting how much ammo a magazine may contain.

Thomas and Kavanaugh have already questioned assault weapon prohibitions.

As an appeals court judge in 2011, Kavanaugh authored a dissent arguing that a comparable bill in Washington, D.C. was unconstitutional. Thomas, meanwhile, dissented in 2015 when the Supreme Court declined to consider a challenge to a local ban on AR-15-style firearms, stating that the “overwhelming majority” of persons who owned the guns used them lawfully, such as for self-defense.

In 2022, the Supreme Court issued a rule that increased gun rights and instructed lower-court justices not to consider concerns such as public safety when determining whether firearm prohibitions are constitutional. Instead, they should consider whether a regulation is consistent with the nation’s long history of gun ownership, the court ruled.

This resulted in a rush of challenges to gun regulations around the country, many limitations being overturned, and confusion among lower-court judges about what gun laws may remain on the books.

Since then, the Supreme Court has rejected a ban on rapid-fire gun attachments known as bump stocks while upholding a provision prohibiting persons with domestic-violence restraining orders from possessing firearms and controls on almost undetectable ghost guns.