The United States Supreme Court recently declined review of a lower court decision upholding a City of Highland Park, Ill. ordinance banning the sale and possession of semiautomatic guns that carry more than 10 rounds of ammunition. In Friedman v. The City of Highland Park, the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago held that the City’s ban of many commonly owned semiautomatic firearms and large-capacity ammunition magazines did not violate the Second Amendment. If the Supreme Court disagreed, similar bans in seven states, including California, would have been threatened.

Challengers of the City’s assault weapons ban argued that it was an affront to the Second Amendment’s protection and right to bear arms. The appellate court reasoned that the Supreme Court had not yet defined the full scope of the Second Amendment’s protections, and, as such, the best way to resolve the remaining questions was through local political processes and scholarly debate.

A dissent by Justice Clarence Thomas focused on the fact that the Seventh Circuit’s decision contravened the Court’s own interpretation of the Second Amendment. He argued the Second Amendment does not permit municipalities, including cities, to ban “types of firearms commonly used for lawful purposes.” In his view, the use of semiautomatic weapons in mass shootings does not outweigh the lawful use of such weapons by gun owners.

The Court’s refusal to review this case leaves in place the opportunity for local municipalities to ban assault weapons; however, this is likely not the final word on the constitutionality of the ban. It is a signal the Supreme Court appears hesitant to engage in the current and controversial debate surrounding gun violence, particularly in light of recent mass shootings. For the time being, the Supreme Court’s refusal to review the lower court’s decision allows localities to protect themselves from violence and, by doing so, define the outer limits of the Second Amendment.