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

[Biggfoot44]

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

Feels like judicial activism to me.

Same thing

 

[Inigoes]

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.

The V in GVR is "Vacate".

The previous 4CA opinion in this case was erased, so that they can look at the case again with the new guidance.

In this case, it seems the new guidance has been rejected and the 4CA is playing "Games", which is not what the "G" stands for in "GVR".

 

[jcutonilli]

The V in GVR is "Vacate".

The previous 4CA opinion in this case was erased, so that they can look at the case again with the new guidance.

In this case, it seems the new guidance has been rejected and the 4CA is playing "Games", which is not what the "G" stands for in "GVR".

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.

 

[Inigoes]

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.

We are talking about Bianchi in this thread.

Kolbe 2.0 is the other 4CA 2A case going en banc.

Or am I getting the cases mixed up?

 

[scottyfz6]

The V in GVR is "Vacate".

The previous 4CA opinion in this case was erased, so that they can look at the case again with the new guidance.

In this case, it seems the new guidance has been rejected and the 4CA is playing "Games", which is not what the "G" stands for in "GVR".

Yes they vacated the previous decision. But they can come to the same result and if they "justify" it with "creative" reading of bruen then the decision is up held. Thats where scotus comes in and gvr it again, and then we go in circles until there is split circuits.

Thats the problem, the states in circuits that say awb's are wrong, would never pass one to be challenged in the first place avoiding the split circuit. Thats why texas needs to sign and pass a AWB and get it shot down on purpose in the 5th. That creates the split, so its easier for scotus to get involved.

 

[Jim12]

To the OP: Although there are over 1,400 responses already, would you please consider changing one word in the thread title from "remits," to "remands," to represent the courts' legal procedure used? I variously cringe and rejoice whenever this "remits" thread pops up:

SCOTUS "remands" cases, it doesn't "remit" them, afaik.

From the looks of it, we're going to have to become increasingly conversant in the legal system's lingo and should make every effort to comport with it.

 

[swinokur]

Boondock approves

 

[jcutonilli]

We are talking about Bianchi in this thread.

Kolbe 2.0 is the other 4CA 2A case going en banc.

Or am I getting the cases mixed up?

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

 

[Malachi.2.15]

So can (and should) the SCOTUS smack down the 4CA for this judicial gymnastics? How do we 'officially' raise this issue up the chain of judicial command?

 

[Mark75H]

So can (and should) the SCOTUS smack down the 4CA for this judicial gymnastics? How does we 'officially' raise this issue up the chain of judicial command?

Writ of mandamus, but it is rarely submitted and even more rarely applied.

 

[Doctor_M]

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​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Can I just say, I hate that little phuk. I don't often say things like that. But I really despise him.

 

[JoeRinMD]

Here's Washington Gun Law's take on it. He provides a good overall recap of the case, along with a succinct description of the (intentionally) extended timeline:

 

[slsc98]

To the OP: Although there are over 1,400 responses already, would you please consider changing one word in the thread title from "remits," to "remands," to represent the courts' legal procedure used? I variously cringe and rejoice whenever this "remits" thread pops up:

SCOTUS "remands" cases, it doesn't "remit" them, afaik.

OP a likely won’t see your request (and valid point ) unless you “notify” him, somehow.

i.e., @jkeys

or, quote him:

https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2022-06-30/supreme-court-says-several-gun-cases-deserve-a-new-look?context=amp

 

[dblas]

Didn't lawyers and other "experts" here claim Mark Smith was wrong when he predicted this would go enbanc?

I'm pretty sure I remember that.

This fast tracks the inevitable, which is a loss for MD gun owners. SCOTUS will have to decide because the panel will NOT side with the 2A.

Not quite, they mentioned that it would not go en banc without an order. Unlike the previous video that was shared that made absolutely no mention of an order for en banc in the case used in that video. BTW, there was also an order for en banc in that case.

 

[Allen65]

Not quite, they mentioned that it would not go en banc without an order. Unlike the previous video that was shared that made absolutely no mention of an order for en banc in the case used in that video. BTW, there was also an order for en banc in that case.

Would it be possible to FOIA all internal correspondence from 4CA that contains the word "Bianchi" over the past 16 months to find out what happened behind the scenes to arrive at the en banc order? Or would those internal court discussions be FOIA exempt because they're in the Judicial, not Executive, Branch, and therefore not an "agency" for FOIA purposes?

If FOIA isn't an option, maybe a PIA request to MDOAG asking essentially the same question might be in order, in case there was backchannel communication between 4CA staff and MDOAG about intent to bypass normal procedure to get to en banc in this case?

The whole dirty process in this case begs for some sunlight.

 

[dblas]

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?

Umm, they GVR'd the case with regards to the level of scrutiny used, not with regards to what the issue was. So, if the 4th decides to use intermediate scrutiny again, then yes "How many times does the Supreme Court need to tell a Circuit that they got the same issue wrong again?"

 

[dblas]

Would it be possible to FOIA all internal correspondence from 4CA that contains the word "Bianchi" over the past 16 months to find out what happened behind the scenes to arrive at the en banc order? Or would those internal court discussions be FOIA exempt because they're in the Judicial, not Executive, Branch, and therefore not an "agency" for FOIA purposes?

If FOIA isn't an option, maybe a PIA request to MDOAG asking essentially the same question might be in order, in case there was backchannel communication between 4CA staff and MDOAG about intent to bypass normal procedure to get to en banc in this case?

The whole dirty process in this case begs for some sunlight.

I don't think so, but this would be a question better answered @esqappellate

 

[Rob00taws6]

I like Washington Gun law. I prefer his videos to all the others. But I do remember him saying that he’s reluctant to post videos regarding Maryland because they get the least views.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Allen65]

I don't think so, but this would be a question better answered @esqappellate

I did a little further digging, and unless there's some other Federal "sunshine" statute that applies to the Judicial Branch, there's no public demand-release system for internal Judicial Branch records.

The PIA mechanism is still viable to see if there was MDAG involvement in the 4CA internal discussions. But MDAG can play games with that process because oversight for it comes from...

...wait for it...

The Maryland Office of Attorney General.

 

[Rob00taws6]

Around 4:50 William Kirk states how Justice Bumatay and justice Van Dyke stood up against the 9 circuit decision to skip the three judge panel in Duncan v. Bonta.

Why isn’t there a similar response in the 4th circuit with bianchi v. brown?? Is the 4 circuit worse than the 9th?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk