Supreme Court remits MD assault weapons ban back to lower courts in light of Bruen vs. NY ruling

[Allen65]

I have a kayak if anybody want to borrow it. It tips over easy if you over load it

My tragic boating accidents luckily haven't involved me actually getting wet.

 

[press1280]

The 4CA to the 9CA:

Even the 9th Circuit at least allowed the 3 judge panel's opinion to be released.

What doesn't make a lot of sense is that they could have still released the opinion and sent it to en banc anyway. Guess the dissenting judge (who probably WAS the one holding up the opinion) just couldn't allow it to be released, even if it was only going to be good law for a few weeks.

 

[Allen65]

Even the 9th Circuit at least allowed the 3 judge panel's opinion to be released.

What doesn't make a lot of sense is that they could have still released the opinion and sent it to en banc anyway. Guess the dissenting judge (who probably WAS the one holding up the opinion) just couldn't allow it to be released, even if it was only going to be good law for a few weeks.

The larger problem for us us the majority of the other judges in 4CA are apparently going along with her.

 

[swinokur]

The AG weighs in

​

​ FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 13, 2024 Media Contacts: press@oag.state.md.us 410-576-7009​ Attorney General Brown’s Statement on Fourth Circuit’s Decision to Rehear Case Challenging Maryland’s Ban on Assault Weapons ​ BALTIMORE, MD – The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has decided to rehear arguments in front of the full court in Bianchi v. Brown, a case involving a constitutional challenge to a Maryland law banning assault weapons. Maryland’s ban on assault weapons was enacted in 2013 after a shooter used an assault weapon in the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut that resulted in the deaths of 20 children and six adults. The court’s decision late Friday evening comes after a three-judge panel of the same court heard oral arguments in the case back in December 2022. No decision had been issued.   “Mass shootings and assault weapons go hand-in-hand. Too many lives have been taken because of these weapons of war that do not belong on our streets or in our communities. I will continue to defend common-sense gun safety laws to protect all Marylanders and to stand up for the innocent lives we have lost at the hands of unnecessary and preventable tragedies that continue to plague this country,” said Attorney General Brown. “I commend the Court’s decision to rehear this case in front of the full court. Innocent lives depend on it.” The hearing before the full court is expected to occur in March 2024. ### https://www.marylandattorneygeneral.gov/press/2024/011324.pdf​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

 

[press1280]

The larger problem for us us the majority of the other judges in 4CA are apparently going along with her.

Yep. I agree with Smith that this is a delay tactic, and they are hoping that in a year or so the SCOTUS will change in some form to their benefit.
Another thing that just occurred to me is maybe the dissent knew they had a total turd and didn't want it released and is looking for "strength in numbers" with the en banc.

 

[Allen65]

Another thing that just occurred to me is maybe the dissent knew they had a total turd and didn't want it released and is looking for "strength in numbers" with the en banc.

Possible, but there's already been a gaggle of very high-priced legal help providing amici briefs for the Antis counsel so far, and adding a few dogmatic judges' opinions to the mix probably isn't going to add many new facts or cogent arguments to the discussion.

 

[press1280]

Possible, but there's already been a gaggle of very high-priced legal help providing amici briefs for the Antis counsel so far, and adding a few dogmatic judges' opinions to the mix probably isn't going to add many new facts or cogent arguments to the discussion.

Agree, but this just seems unprecedented. As bad as some of these circuits are they've never withheld a 3 judge panel's opinion.

 

[Allen65]

Agree, but this just seems unprecedented. As bad as some of these circuits are they've never withheld a 3 judge panel's opinion.

It is unprecedented. But the fact the Antis had to resort to this gives me hope. They're desperate and know they can't win without fighting dirty.

It's the political equivalent of the Ardennes Offensive. It sucked to be in the middle of it on the Allied side, but it turned out to be a last-ditch effort where the adversary threw everything they had left into a single campaign. And when it was over, the Axis had exhausted all their reserves and had nothing left to fight on with. We have Mark P playing the role of Eisenhower. The role of Patton is still up for grabs, but there are a few good candidates.

 

[MeatGrinder]

Feels like judicial activism to me.

 

[Allen65]

Feels like judicial activism to me.

I'd classify it more as unprofessional behavior. Or abuse of office to pursue personal goals.

 

[press1280]

I'm just curious if the circuit's rules even allow this period.

 

[smokey]

I don't see this as much of a loss. This was always going to go "en blanc" anyway. This just strips us of the temporary "feel goodness" of a pro 2A decision that was going to immediately get stayed anyway. So I look at it as we've saved a few weeks in the inevitable Kabuki dance that eventually gets this to SCOTUS, hopefully while we still have a constitutionally minded majority there.

Winning in court means failing upwards as fast as you can to push cases up to the SC. HOPEFULLY our current SC stays alive long enough to get a whack at this when it's time.

 

[Apd09]

Winning in court means failing upwards as fast as you can to push cases up to the SC. HOPEFULLY our current SC stays alive long enough to get a whack at this when it's time.

Or a win in September. Accomplished the same thing if not makes it near impossible to shift for a long time.

If RBG and others had retired instead of sitting on the bench into old age they could’ve been replaced by a like minded person.

If Trump wins, and Thomas and 1 other decide to retire and let him replace them Trump would have put what, 5 judges on the court and they’d be there for the next 2 decades.

The left would lose their mind and try to pack it at that point the first chance they got.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JPG]

The wheels of justice turn very slowly.........

 

[Some Guy]

Yes, the SCOTUS did address assault weapons, the supremes GVR'd Bianchi (this case) and said see Bruen.

How many times does the Supreme Court need to tell a Circuit that they got the same issue wrong again?

I agree with this. If Bruen hadn't provided sufficient direction then this case would have been heard at the Supreme Court. There is enough between Bruen and Heller for any circuit to decide.

I continue to believe this is judicial abuse of the plaintiffs and the People.

 

[Bob A]

It's the political equivalent of the Ardennes Offensive. It sucked to be in the middle of it on the Allied side, but it turned out to be a last-ditch effort where the adversary threw everything they had left into a single campaign. And when it was over, the Axis had exhausted all their reserves and had nothing left to fight on with.

Sadly, the Progs have plenty of reserves, namely our tax dollars.

 

[jcutonilli]

Yes, the SCOTUS did address assault weapons, the supremes GVR'd Bianchi (this case) and said see Bruen.

How many times does the Supreme Court need to tell a Circuit that they got the same issue wrong again?

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 on the new opinion.

 

[Boxcab]

Feels like judicial activism to me.

As I posted earlier... They blinked.

They've got nothing, but delay.



.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

 

[Kharn]

Possible, but there's already been a gaggle of very high-priced legal help providing amici briefs for the Antis counsel so far, and adding a few dogmatic judges' opinions to the mix probably isn't going to add many new facts or cogent arguments to the discussion.

From the order, no additional briefing from the parties or amicus (with only jcutonilli being listed IIRC) is being scheduled before oral arguments. They're printing additional copies of previously-submitted briefs.

 

[noddaz]

Bring in exhibit "A".
Rolls up to courtroom with a tractor trailer full of semi auto firearms so the court can decide what an assault weapon actually is.
Ask the judge to go through the firearms one by one to make the decision.