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

T-Unit said:
Suppressors are not the bogeyman they once were. When even anti-gun Europe has them easily accessible, the argument against them is flawed.
Click to expand...

Like this:

View: https://www.instagram.com/p/CjlJQhKtDuD/


View: https://www.instagram.com/p/C__K-tJtvsL/


View: https://www.instagram.com/p/C6ackkotuqq/


View: https://www.instagram.com/p/CzyLWDgN_8D/


View: https://www.instagram.com/p/CzvWh-pNXwX/

JENNIE-LEE 🇸🇪 on Instagram: "❄️🤍Semester 🤍❄️ #tjäderjakt . . . . . . . #jakt @pinewoodhunting_official #pinewoodhunting_official #wildboarhunting @pinewoodhunting_official @interjakt_borlange #vildsvinshund #pinewoodoutdoor_official #vildsvin #vildsvinsjakt #wildboar #jakthund #älgjakt #hunting #jägare #hunter #sweden #rallydriver #realtree #realtreeoutdoors #realtreeglobal #jagd #jagt #outdoor #jentersomjakter #yespinewood #vildsvinsjakt #wildboarhunting #vildsvinsjaktmedhund #yespinewood"
 
T-Unit said:
Is it the entire NFA or just the stuff related to firearms that Snope would impact? Short barrel laws are practically obsolete now with braces, so those being 86'd from the NFA is really a nothing burger.
Click to expand...
The pistol brace rule was not overturned on 2A grounds. It was overturned because the ATF didn't dance the right steps to satisfy the APA. The court also found (quoting):
"the adaptation of the Final Rule was arbitrary and capricious for two reasons. First, the Defendants did not provide a detailed justification for their reversal of the agency's longstanding position. And second, the Final Rule's standards are impermissibly vague."

There's nothing which prevents the ATF from trying again. Even worse, if the Feds can convince a trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt that a braced pistol was "designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder" both the maker of the weapon and the user of the weapon can be convicted under the NFA despite the rule being struck down.

It's barely possible that a favorable ruling on an AWB case would be broad enough to invalidate sections of the NFA. But frankly, I don't see that happening. The most likely outcome is that Snope has no impact on NFA at all.

T-Unit said:
Suppressors are not the bogeyman they once were. When even anti-gun Europe has them easily accessible, the argument against them is flawed.
Click to expand...

I believe it'll take a different case to strike down suppressor laws, since unlike Massachusetts, Maryland law doesn't prohibit them. Nor is a $200 tax stamp the barrier to ownership that it once was.
 
Parker Schreiber said:
The pistol brace rule was not overturned on 2A grounds. It was overturned because the ATF didn't dance the right steps to satisfy the APA. The court also found (quoting):
"the adaptation of the Final Rule was arbitrary and capricious for two reasons. First, the Defendants did not provide a detailed justification for their reversal of the agency's longstanding position. And second, the Final Rule's standards are impermissibly vague."

There's nothing which prevents the ATF from trying again. Even worse, if the Feds can convince a trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt that a braced pistol was "designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder" both the maker of the weapon and the user of the weapon can be convicted under the NFA despite the rule being struck down.

It's barely possible that a favorable ruling on an AWB case would be broad enough to invalidate sections of the NFA. But frankly, I don't see that happening. The most likely outcome is that Snope has no impact on NFA at all.
Click to expand...
What about states that ban NFA items like much of those in the northeast? I've been thinking that under Bruen that qualifies as a 14th amendment issue wrt Equal Protection.

Could Snope have an impact on that?
 
T-Unit said:
What about states that ban NFA items like much of those in the northeast? I've been thinking that under Bruen that qualifies as a 14th amendment issue wrt Equal Protection.
Click to expand...

Bruen was technically a 14th amendment case via incorporation of the 2nd amendment. The incorporation doctrine is based on the Due Process Clause, not the Equal Protection Clause.

In Maryland, "civilians" are allowed to own an SBR if it's been registered as such with the ATF and it doesn't fall under the AWB for other reasons. So again, it wouldn't be in scope of what's challenged in Snope. Still, an unexpectedly (to me) wide ranging decision is possible.
 
Parker Schreiber said:
I believe it'll take a different case to strike down suppressor laws, since unlike Massachusetts, Maryland law doesn't prohibit them. Nor is a $200 tax stamp the barrier to ownership that it once was.
Click to expand...
I think that’s a crazy idea… I know that’s the stance they’d take but how is a $200 tax stamp not a unreasonable barrier when it’s fairly well documented that 60+% of Americans don’t have enough money in their savings to cover a $500 emergency and about 40% can’t cover $250!!!??
 
sbhaven said:
Couple of points.
Friday was just "Miscellaneous Order". See the SCOTUS Orders page. We might potentially see an "Orders" released on Tuesday. Look at the previous week where they did Miscellaneous Orders on Friday the 10th and Orders on Monday the 13th.

The Snope case has apparently been distributed to conference three times (Nov 26 2024, Jan 06 2025 and Jan 13 2025).
The Ocean State Tactical case has apparently been distributed to conference four times (Nov 19 2024, Dec 09 2024, Jan 06 2025 and Jan 13 2025).
The Bruen case was distributed to conference four times (Mar 10 2021, Mar 29 2021, Apr 12 2021 and Apr 19 2021). With the petition granted on Apr 26 2021.

Edit to add: Currently, per the SCOTUS main website, there is a Conference Day next Friday (the 24th) and two Conference Day's currently scheduled for February (Friday the 21st and Friday the 28th).
Click to expand...
Yes there are continuing conferences but as time marches on the chance of being heard this session moves on.
Who wants to wait until June 2026 to settle AW or magazine bans?
 
T-Unit said:
Is it the entire NFA or just the stuff related to firearms that Snope would impact? Short barrel laws are practically obsolete now with braces, so those being 86'd from the NFA is really a nothing burger.

Suppressors are not the bogeyman they once were. When even anti-gun Europe has them easily accessible, the argument against them is flawed.

It's really just the MG's that becomes the third rail no court wants to touch, but when every gangbanger in every big city has the Glock Switch and those can be 3D printed with ease, what's the concern with removing the MG from the NFA? The worst in our society already have machine guns in their baggy pockets.

At the very least, Hughes should be undone.
Click to expand...
Snope would not likely directly effect NFA items, although it could be written to do so.
My point is that given the case history and pleadings, unless the opinion's holding is written specifically to affirm the NFA and GCA it will undermine their legality even further.
Bruen strengthened the text, history and tradition framework which allowed for Canjura - Switchblades were never mentioned in Bruen but Bruen laid the foundation necessary to show their protection.
While Thomas may be pro giggle switch, most on the bench are at best agnostic on the subject. We want cert with Thomas, Kavanagh then Alito in that order as the writer.
 
pastera said:
Yes there are continuing conferences but as time marches on the chance of being heard this session moves on.
Who wants to wait until June 2026 to settle AW or magazine bans?
Click to expand...
Is that the case? If they aren’t heard this term is there no chance they could be settled at the beginning or middle of next term? If so, why? Thanks.
 
Thumopolis said:
Is that the case? If they aren’t heard this term is there no chance they could be settled at the beginning or middle of next term? If so, why? Thanks.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't be heard until next October the earliest so an opinion would come out Jan 26 or later.

While that would be infinitely better then a denial, we want those decisions now at the beginning of Trump's term in order to set the stage for new laws.
 
Chief Justice Roberts is described as being big on maintaining the image and authority of the court. So, I am still holding out hope that he will feel that the case needs to be taken up because SCOTUS has been disrespected by the 4th Circuit, which basically shat on SCOTUS and their Bruen precedent after the case was previously granted cert and sent back down as Bianchi v. Frosh.

🐯
 
pastera said:
That's the only highly politically active segment.
And that's all that matters
Click to expand...

Nevada, New York, Montana, Missouri, Maryland, Colorado, and Arizona all passed voter initiatives to protect women's access to health, including abortion. Some of those states aren't surprising, (e.g.: New York), but there's some fairly red states in there.

Nebraska's petition failed 51 to 49%; that's very close
The initiative in South Dakota' (a pretty conservative state) failed 59 to 41%. That's not as close, but it's a really red state.
Florida's initiative got 57% of the vote, but didn't pass because 66% was required to pass.

Even in red states the pro-rights groups are a very significant factor.

Dismissing pro-rights people as "only white liberal women" doesn't seem fair.
 
milktree said:
Nevada, New York, Montana, Missouri, Maryland, Colorado, and Arizona all passed voter initiatives to protect women's access to health, including abortion. Some of those states aren't surprising, (e.g.: New York), but there's some fairly red states in there.

Nebraska's petition failed 51 to 49%; that's very close
The initiative in South Dakota' (a pretty conservative state) failed 59 to 41%. That's not as close, but it's a really red state.
Florida's initiative got 57% of the vote, but didn't pass because 66% was required to pass.

Even in red states the pro-rights groups are a very significant factor.

Dismissing pro-rights people as "only white liberal women" doesn't seem fair.
Click to expand...
While younger women may gave been called to action, it was driven by white, college educated liberal women.
You are misrepresenting what I said - there wasn't a massive backlash against SCOTUS.
There was a political effort to push state legislation.
Now that's done, they simply aren't a cohesive group. They got their fund raising done and like the NRA, are waiting for the next existential crisis to pump up the donors and troops again.
 
T-Unit said:
Yeah, when a guy takes an Uber to one of the homes of a Justice to assassinate him, that's pretty big for backlash.
Click to expand...
Is it still ongoing?
Roe turning back to the states was more of a nothing burger - the hate, discontent and outrage were highly curated in order to maximize profit to the pro abortion groups.

Are there some loud die hards? Yes, bit the big push is more worried about keeping an industry alive and their donors scared.
 
pastera said:
Is it still ongoing?
Roe turning back to the states was more of a nothing burger - the hate, discontent and outrage were highly curated in order to maximize profit to the pro abortion groups.

Are there some loud die hards? Yes, bit the big push is more worried about keeping an industry alive and their donors scared.
Click to expand...

Your bias is showing. There are tons of people who are still furious about it. Abortion and Roe have been the most divisive issues of the past half century.
 
PappyM3 said:
Your bias is showing. There are tons of people who are still furious about it. Abortion and Roe have been the most divisive issues of the past half century.
Click to expand...
The question is influence on SCOTUS - yes there is plenty of hate going towards state legislators but SCOTUS has moved on.

Roberts cares about perception in the legal community first and foremost - the average person's opinion isn't barely on his radar.

As far as granting cert to Snope - I see him trying to push it out to keep people from acting like Trump has sway over the court. And that's within the legal and political communities, not the plebes.

And those pissed over Roe - fck em - Bad case law needs to go down no matter how unpopular the opinion is. The federal government has zero constitutional power over the issue as argued and 9 robes shouldn't be able to change that. Lots of people don't want anyone but the government to have automatics and that's another area the feds shouldn't have any power.
 
Coyote33 said:
"A right delayed is a right denied." ~MLK

Did they approve "cert" yet?

;-)
Click to expand...
Orders list should be out tomorrow.
Three possibilities
Cert granted - what we want
Cert denied - while I'd be surprised it is becoming a possibility.
Relist - this would be a two path option
1 - A lengthy dissent is being written for a denial
2 - Robert is pushing thr court to hear the case next session for appearances.


If Ginsburg were still alive the possibility of a per curiam based on the 4th's obvious shenanigans.
 
Coyote33 said:
Last night was not. And they sure have the capability to do things at night. Unfortunately, it is usually things they do AGAINST us, not FOR us, at night.
Click to expand...
Per the SCOTUS website's calendar:

Today at the Court - Friday, Jan 17, 2025
  • The Supreme Court Building is open to the public from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.
  • The Court may announce opinions on the homepage beginning at 10 a.m. The Court will not take the Bench.
  • The Justices will meet in a private conference to discuss cases and vote on petitions for review.
  • The Court will release an order list at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, January 21.

Today at the Court - Tuesday, Jan 21, 2025
  • The Court will release an order list at 9:30 a.m.
  • The Court will convene for a public session in the Courtroom at 10 a.m. The Justices will hear two oral arguments. An audio feed will be live-streamed, and the audio will be available on the Court's website later in the day.
  • Seating for the oral argument session will be provided to the public, members of the Supreme Court Bar, and press. The three-minute line will be temporarily suspended. The Supreme Court Building will be otherwise closed.
  • The Supreme Court Building will reopen to the public following the conclusion of the Court session and close at 3 p.m.
 
pastera said:
Orders list should be out tomorrow.
Three possibilities
Cert granted - what we want
Cert denied - while I'd be surprised it is becoming a possibility.
Relist - this would be a two path option
1 - A lengthy dissent is being written for a denial
2 - Robert is pushing thr court to hear the case next session for appearances.


If Ginsburg were still alive the possibility of a per curiam based on the 4th's obvious shenanigans.
Click to expand...
What are the implications of a dissent being written? I am familiar with what it is but not so much with the effect it would have going forward (or not). Thanks
 

Similar threads

Garland v. VanDerStok
Replies
0
Views
103
lutstribe
L
SCOTUS denies cert on two 2A cases.
Replies
2
Views
361
MickeyD’s
M
Run to Home Base Fundraising
Replies
1
Views
80
Severus Semi-Auto Snape
Severus Semi-Auto Snape
What states still have “94” AWB in place?
Replies
10
Views
526
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
  • Poll Poll
Which gun to shoot for complete gun n00b?
2
Replies
56
Views
747
Cuz
Cuz
Back
Top Bottom