Maryland AWB case Snope v Brown going to SCOTUS. (Formerly Bianchi v Brown & Bianchi v Frosh)

[Cap'n Mike]

This case deserves its own thread, as it has a really good chance of being granted Cert by SCOTUS next session and overturning Assault Weapons Bans nation wide.

It was Granted Cert, Vacated and Remanded (GVRd) by SCOTUS when they issued the Bruen Decision (under the name Bianchi V Frosh), and has now once again cleared the hurdle of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Unlike previous recent AWB cases SCOTUS has failed to grant Cert to, this one has a final judgement by an appeals court and isn’t an interlocutory appeal (other aspects of the case are still pending)

FPC page on the case here.
MarylandAWban.com: Bianchi v. Brown - FPC Law 2A Challenge to Maryland's "Assault Weapons" Ban


<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="x.com">#2A</a> MAJOR 2A NEWS: The US Court of Appeals for 4th Circuit (an undeniably terrible anti-gun court) just screwed up anti-gun movement. The en banc court issued a decision upholding Maryland&#39;s AR-15 (semi-auto rifle) ban (100% expected), and did NOT remand back to lower court for… <a href="x.com">x.com</a></p>&mdash; Mark W. Smith/#2A Scholar (@fourboxesdiner) <a href="
View: https://twitter.com/fourboxesdiner/status/1820891106642407572?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
">August 6, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[sbhaven]

Direct link to the opinion: https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...2968222/2024.08.06_114_OPINION.pdf?1722968222

 

[Spartan65]

I was wondering if there was a thread about this. Should be good stuff with circuit splits leading to SCOTUS possibly granting cert.

 

[Cap'n Mike]

I was wondering if there was a thread about this. Should be good stuff with circuit splits leading to SCOTUS possibly granting cert.

I searched, but couldn’t find a thread specificly about this case.

 

[Dennis in MA]

I don't get it. You're going to lose to the SC. Why delay it? Do you think you are helping????? Imagine if Republican courts did this with abortion rights in the 1970's? Just ignored the SC ruling and told everyone to pound sand?

 

[sbhaven]

From the opinion:

With the respectful consideration and benefit of Bruen, we now uphold the judgment below. The assault weapons at issue fall outside the ambit of protection offered by the Second Amendment because, in essence, they are military-style weapons designed for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self defense. Moreover, the Maryland law fits comfortably within our nation’s tradition of firearms regulation. It is but another example of a state regulating excessively dangerous weapons once their incompatibility with a lawful and safe society becomes apparent, while nonetheless preserving avenues for armed self-defense.

For these reasons, we decline to wield the Constitution to declare that military-style armaments which have become primary instruments of mass killing and terrorist attacks in the United States are beyond the reach of our nation’s democratic processes. In so holding, we offer no view on how a state should regulate firearms. Nor do we do anything to impose Maryland’s regulations upon other states. We do hold, however, that Maryland was well within its constitutional prerogative to legislate as it did. We therefore reject the challenges of appellants and affirm the judgment of the district court.
.....
The upshot is that the text of the Second Amendment, like the text of other constitutional provisions, must be interpreted against its historical and legal backdrop. See Bruen, 597 U.S. at 25 (endorsing “reliance on history to inform the meaning of constitutional text—especially text meant to codify a pre-existing right”). What we must do under Bruen, then, is assess the historical scope of the right to keep and bear arms to determine whether the text of the Second Amendment encompasses the right to possess the assault weapons at issue. See Price, No. 22-4609, slip op. at 12–13 (majority opinion)(“[W]e can only properly apply step one of the Bruen framework by looking to the historical scope of the Second Amendment right.”).

 

[JoseyWales]

 

[Cap'n Mike]

I don't get it. You're going to lose to the SC. Why delay it? Do you think you are helping????? Imagine if Republican courts did this with abortion rights in the 1970's? Just ignored the SC ruling and told everyone to pound sand?

It’s a delay game the antis are playing, hoping one or 2 of the Conservative Justices has a heart attack and is replaced by the Harris administration with a Justice that’s to the left of Moa.

 

[Sunny]

View attachment 906285

Hopefully Gorsuch unleashes his inner Scalia

 

[alx]

From the opinion:

With the respectful consideration and benefit of Bruen, we now uphold the judgment below. The assault weapons at issue fall outside the ambit of protection offered by the Second Amendment because, in essence, they are military-style weapons designed for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self defense.

… what some people fail to understand is that in the context of the 2A the right to bear arms has little to do with self defense… and the fact that those are military weapons of war -IS- precisely the point …

 

[EMTDAD]

military-style armaments

yep.. my M1 Garand (possible, and definitely others) saw action in actual wars... my ARs (or their duplicates) never did..

yet the M1 isn't a weapon of war, but the AR's are..

liberal (lack of) logic

 

[VetteGirlMA]

Finally 2 cases with a circuit split and final judgement. Hello SCOTUS are you paying attention now?

 

[Sparky1911]

Finally!!!

 

[PappyM3]

While I suppose it’s more likely to be granted cert because it’s strictly “assault weapon” and not both “assault weapon and magazine capacity restrictions”, I really wish it were both because I don’t see SCOTUS granting cert to two separate weapon and magazine cases.

 

[DarthRevan]

Oh this is going to be good.

 

[Dadstoys]

 

[Lank]

So good chance this goes before SC for consideration?

If the SC chooses to hear it?

 

[Picton]

So good chance this goes before SC for consideration?

If the SC chooses to hear it?

They already chose to hear it.

Then they ruled on Bruen, which affected this one, so they remanded it back to the original court so they could reexamine it and do the right thing with the new Bruen standard.

Well, that court declined to do the right thing. They're reaffirming their earlier decision as though Bruen never happened. The legal term for that is "pitching a hissy-fit."

SCOTUS is unlikely to take kindly to that reaffirmation.

 

[Lank]

They already chose to hear it.

Then they ruled on Bruen, which affected this one, so they remanded it back to the original court so they could reexamine it and do the right thing with the new Bruen standard.

Well, that court declined to do the right thing. They're reaffirming their earlier decision as though Bruen never happened. The legal term for that is "pitching a hissy-fit."

SCOTUS is unlikely to take kindly to that reaffirmation.

So progress for us remains glacial speed

 

[Picton]

So progress for us remains glacial speed

The process is what it is. SCOTUS is unwilling to make it go faster. We can whine about that all we want to, but they're very consistent in their approach and they have good institutional reasons for it.

It takes as long as it takes. It's critically important that it be done right, so that we won't ever need to do this again.

 

[ThePreBanMan]

Man, FPC is racking up the wins. I think it's time I reconsider who I give money too. NRA, GOAL, even Comm2A......... I'm looking at you.... What have you done for me lately? I'm not trying to be an ass. But I want to give where it actually makes a difference... I pay for performance... Right now, FPC is getting it done.

 

[sbhaven]

Mark Smith from Four Boxes Diner discusses the news.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-sjZyenplc

"US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issues Bianchi Decision upholding AR-15 "assault weapon" ban law in MD. Court rules against 2A but it sets up Supreme Court fight over whether AR bans are constitutional under 2A."

 

[Joeldiaz]

I don't get it. You're going to lose to the SC. Why delay it? Do you think you are helping????? Imagine if Republican courts did this with abortion rights in the 1970's? Just ignored the SC ruling and told everyone to pound sand?

The smart thing for them to do would’ve been to remand the case back down to the district court, like literally all of the other anti-2A circuits did. At the very least, they should’ve held off on issuing this opinion until after the presidential election to see if Trump loses. Not a good play by anti-gunners here.

 

[Joeldiaz]

I was wondering if there was a thread about this. Should be good stuff with circuit splits leading to SCOTUS possibly granting cert.

Where is there a circuit split when it comes to AWBs?

 

[Picton]

The smart thing for them to do would’ve been to remand the case back down to the district court, like literally all of the other anti-2A circuits did. At the very least, they should’ve held off on issuing this opinion until after the presidential election to see if Trump loses. Not a good play by anti-gunners here.

Or MD should have seen the writing on the wall and repealed the law, mooting the case.

Too late now, bitches!

 

[JoseyWales]

If SCOTUS rules that ARs can't be banned, I bet the registration requirement sticks and Maura doubles down sending the jack boots door to door to enforce.

 

[Picton]

If SCOTUS rules that ARs can't be banned, I bet the registration requirement sticks and Maura doubles down sending the jack boots door to door to enforce.

I'm just going to politely disagree there.

She'll do what MA did when Bruen came out: she'll quietly comply and nobody will ask her about it.



...until they investigate an unwieldy workaround three or four years down the road.

 

[LittleCalm]

Even if SCOTUS fixes this, eventually a liberal court will overturn it someday just like the current court overturned Roe. I’m not saying Roe was correctly decided, but ultimately what is correctly decided is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[VTski4x4]

Even if SCOTUS fixes this, eventually a liberal court will overturn it someday just like the current court overturned Roe. I’m not saying Roe was correctly decided, but ultimately what is correctly decided is in the eye of the beholder.

Then people get shot. In the face. Not like they're becoming less popular..

 

[Picton]

Even if SCOTUS fixes this, eventually a liberal court will overturn it someday just like the current court overturned Roe. I’m not saying Roe was correctly decided, but ultimately what is correctly decided is in the eye of the beholder.

The current SCOTUS is doing exactly what the 1972 SCOTUS failed to do with Roe: they're setting precedent, squeezing off all the avenues of attack, and building a durable precedent based on repeated, self-supporting decisions. All the time that's being taken now, which many NESers are pissed about (because they're understandably tired of waiting), is what's going to make it harder for any subsequent SCOTUS to overturn Bruen.

I've said it on here on some other thread: a trailer home goes up fast, but a house with a more durable foundation takes longer. When the tornado comes, one of them withstands it and the other gets swept away. Roe was a trailer home, Bruen was the deep hole dug under a house designed to last forever. Bianchi will be the concrete slabs poured for the Bruen foundation hole, then other cases will be the framing and the siding and all that jazz.

We owe the permanent house to our kids, since our fathers and grandfathers allowed elected officials to tear down the one the Founders built. Let's do it right.