Victory in MSI HQL suit

[308Scout]

So now we get to see when 4th is going to schedule and how many months it takes to get the resulting decision. More hurry up and wait.

Thanks to those who are actively working this and other cases.

Oral arguments tentatively schedule for March 19. Decision at some point when they get around to it after that (plus two weeks).

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca4.164615/gov.uscourts.ca4.164615.67.0.pdf

 

[motorcoachdoug]

Why am I not surprised by this?? I wonder if Oregon losing its version of HQL measure 114 can help us in anyway since it did violate the Oregon Constitution.

 

[Boondock Saint]

I'd love to see a break down of en banc petitions granted by CA4 when concerning a state appealing a decision that rolls back gun control as compared to all others. My guess is that it's quite a bit higher.

Hopefully there are enough honest jurists in that circuit to do what's right here. As stated elsewhere, I won't hold my breath.

 

[Blacksmith101]

Mark Smith our favorite long winded lawyer has a YouTube video on this:

 

[Steel Hunter]

4th Circuit En Banc time from argument to decisions:

En Banc Cases

2022: 7 days to 7 months (only 3 cases)
2021: 3 month median, 6 months longest
2020: 5 month median, 6 months longest
2019: 4 months and a week median, 6 months longest
2018: 4 months (1 case)

I will be shocked if this case has an En Banc decision before election day. Historically though, En Banc arguments in March have been decided in June or July.

 

[eruby]

En banc has been granted. Hold on to your butts.

Samuel L Jackson approves of this post

CMC
EBMD
SMDMGA

 

[adit]

Why am I not surprised by this?? I wonder if Oregon losing its version of HQL measure 114 can help us in anyway since it did violate the Oregon Constitution.

Delaware still going full steam ahead with their version of this.

 

[Biggfoot44]

En banc has been granted. Hold on to your butts.

It probably goes without saying , but presumably the stay ( injunction? ) keeping the HQL in effect is extended until the En Banc ruling ?

 

[esqappellate]

It probably goes without saying , but presumably the stay ( injunction? ) keeping the HQL in effect is extended until the En Banc ruling ?

The petition for rehearing delayed the issuance of the panel’s mandate and by operation of the rules of appellate procedure, the grant of reheairing en banc simply continues that stay of the mandate.

 

[Allen65]

Would it be fair to assume that if there were enough votes in 4CA to hear the case en banc, there are enough pre-decided votes to overturn the panel decision? I'd assume 4CA judges who agreed with the panel or who were ambivalent wouldn't have voted to waste the entire CA's time on an en banc process for a niche issue like this. The Antis* know a State appeal of the panel decision to SCOTUS would ultimately be a loss whether or not cert is granted, but their chance to save the law is to get an en banc to overturn the panel and keep their fingers crossed that SCOTUS doesn't grant cert to an appeal of the en banc.

It's a strategically sound move for the Antis. Actually, now it's probably their only realistic move to salvage the HQL law.

* By "Antis", I mean the whole set of Judicial, Legislative, and Executive Branch officials at both state and Federal levels, along with private lobbying groups, all of whom believe private weapons ownership should be a tightly-regulated privilege, limited to select individuals.

 

[Schipperke]

Would it be fair to assume that if there were enough votes in 4CA to hear the case en banc, there are enough pre-decided votes to overturn the panel decision? I'd assume 4CA judges who agreed with the panel or who were ambivalent wouldn't have voted to waste the entire CA's time on an en banc process for a niche issue like this. The Antis* know a State appeal of the panel decision to SCOTUS would ultimately be a loss whether or not cert is granted, but their chance to save the law is to get an en banc to overturn the panel and keep their fingers crossed that SCOTUS doesn't grant cert to an appeal of the en banc.

It's a strategically sound move for the Antis. Actually, now it's probably their only realistic move to salvage the HQL law.

* By "Antis", I mean the whole set of Judicial, Legislative, and Executive Branch officials at both state and Federal levels, along with private lobbying groups, all of whom believe private weapons ownership should be a tightly-regulated privilege, limited to select individuals.

Spock agrees..

 

[Mark75H]

If the fourth upholds HQL I’m sure there is going to be conflict in another district that will encourage the Supreme Court to intervene and resolve

 

[Worsley]

Is an En Banc being granted a good thing or a bad thing?

 

[whistlersmother]

Is an En Banc being granted a good thing or a bad thing?

I would think a denial is a good thing. The only recourse for the state after that is to ask for cert from SCOTUS (which, I hope, would find the joke amusing while writing "rejected" in big red letters).

 

[esqappellate]

Would it be fair to assume that if there were enough votes in 4CA to hear the case en banc, there are enough pre-decided votes to overturn the panel decision? I'd assume 4CA judges who agreed with the panel or who were ambivalent wouldn't have voted to waste the entire CA's time on an en banc process for a niche issue like this. The Antis* know a State appeal of the panel decision to SCOTUS would ultimately be a loss whether or not cert is granted, but their chance to save the law is to get an en banc to overturn the panel and keep their fingers crossed that SCOTUS doesn't grant cert to an appeal of the en banc.

It's a strategically sound move for the Antis. Actually, now it's probably their only realistic move to salvage the HQL law.

* By "Antis", I mean the whole set of Judicial, Legislative, and Executive Branch officials at both state and Federal levels, along with private lobbying groups, all of whom believe private weapons ownership should be a tightly-regulated privilege, limited to select individuals.

Agreed, at least in part. En banc will also decide the standard of review and the associated analysis that could reach beyond the facts or law involved in this particular case.

 

[Allen65]

Agreed, at least in part. En banc will also decide the standard of review and the associated analysis that could reach beyond the facts or law involved in this particular case.

So we need to hope that totality of the en banc court's final decision is repugnant enough to existing SCOTUS precedent that cert will be granted even in the absence of a circuit split?

 

[esqappellate]

So we need to hope that totality of the en banc court's final decision is repugnant enough to existing SCOTUS precedent that cert will be granted even in the absence of a circuit split?

Hope for a circuit conflict.

 

[Bertfish]

Agreed, at least in part. En banc will also decide the standard of review and the associated analysis that could reach beyond the facts or law involved in this particular case.

What confuses me about your statement is that the standard of review, to me, was decided in Bruen. What more is there to decide?

 

[Allen65]

Hope for a circuit conflict.

Problem is most states in pro-2A circuits aren't likely to pass the sorts of gun control laws that would be found in unconstitutional in those circuits. Unless somewhere like TX or TN decides to "Take one for the team" by intentionally passing something extreme they want overturned. But that's not going to happen.

 

[esqappellate]

What confuses me about your statement is that the standard of review, to me, was decided in Bruen. What more is there to decide?

Lots of details. Like the weight give 1868 analogues vs 1791 analogues or how to apply the "how and why" inquiry required by Bruen, viz., how close the analogy needs to be when you use a "distinct" similarity approach vs. a "relevantly similar" approach. Big list.