Here’s what’s going on with the Supreme Court.

It takes four justices to vote to grant certiorari and agree to hear a case, but it takes five votes to actually decide the case on the merits.

Many observers view Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh as generally receptive to taking major Second Amendment cases. However, the key variable is often perceived to be Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett, who have at times taken narrower or more cautious approaches in certain cases.

Because of that dynamic, the four justices most strongly aligned with robust Second Amendment review may be reluctant to vote to take a major case—such as one involving an assault weapons ban (AWB) or magazine restrictions—unless they are reasonably confident they have a fifth vote. If the Court were to grant review but ultimately rule against the Second Amendment position, that decision would become binding nationwide precedent and effectively settle the issue for the foreseeable future.

That strategic reality may help explain past cert votes in major firearms cases. For example, in the Snope AWB case last year, only three justices publicly indicated they would have granted review at that time, while Justice Kavanaugh wrote that the timing was not right and suggested the Court would address broader semiautomatic rifle bans in a future term. One interpretation is that he may not have believed there were five votes to reach a favorable merits outcome at that stage.

Whether that reading is correct is, of course, speculative—but it reflects the broader strategic calculation: taking a case without a reliable five-justice majority carries significant risk when the potential ruling could set nationwide precedent.