It starts the clock for a response. If the state intends on filing a waiver or extension, it will likely appear on the docket a week or two before the response deadline. The response date for the state is 13 March
You are getting mixed up.
This thread is about Bianchi aka AWB case (Kolbe 2.0)
4CA also took MSI v Brown en banc aka HQL the day before this one. For more info see https://www.marylandshallissue.org/jmain/counselor-s-corner/hqlsuit
They vacated Bianchi, not Kolbe. The problem is that Kolbe affects Bianchi. They have not rejected anything because they have not issued any opinions. It appears they are going to address the Kolbe precedent en banc.
I am not sure you understand what GVR means. It is simply SCOTUS asking the lower court to take a new look at a case based on new precedent. It does not mean that the case was wrong. The lower courts routinely come to the same conclusion. SCOTUS then can decide if they want to grant cert based...
Kolbe was the 4ca opinion of what Heller supposedly said. While it was clear that Bruen overruled the intermediate scrutiny analysis, it was unclear how Bruen affected the applicability of “assault weapons” in Kolbe since Bruen did not address that issue
One of the holdings in Kolbe was that "assault weapons" don't have 2A protection. Bruen technically did not "decide anything about the kinds of weapons that people may possess." (Alito concurrence).
While I believe that Bruen clarified the issue enough to demonstrate that it should be...
I would guess it is due to the fact that Kolbe is the en banc precedent that drove this case. There may be some precedent that only en banc courts can over rule previous en banc precedents.