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

[Spartan65]

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

Headed that way in the third circuit.

A federal judge reluctantly concludes that New Jersey's AR-15 ban is unconstitutional

This week, a federal judge ruled that a major provision of New Jersey's "assault weapon" ban is unconstitutional, but he was not happy about saying so.

reason.com

 

[knucklehead]

the Dems in MA will shit their skirts if SCOTUS takes and decides in the favor of the gun owner!

 

[Picton]

the Dems in MA will shit their skirts if when SCOTUS takes and decides in the favor of the gun owner!

FIFY

 

[Garys]

This post all by itself deserves a sticky.

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.

 

[Garys]

The third could well overturn the district ruling and agree with the Fourth

Headed that way in the third circuit.

A federal judge reluctantly concludes that New Jersey's AR-15 ban is unconstitutional

This week, a federal judge ruled that a major provision of New Jersey's "assault weapon" ban is unconstitutional, but he was not happy about saying so.

reason.com

 

[Picton]

The third could well overturn the district ruling and agree with the Fourth

Won't matter. Whether the circuits split or not, the earlier GVR should guarantee cert for Bianchi. I think.

 

[Garys]

I hope so.

Won't matter. Whether the circuits split or not, the earlier GVR should guarantee cert for Bianchi. I think.

 

[Varmint]

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.

Thanks cause my head was hurting trying to understand the situation.

 

[Varmint]

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.

Is there going to be a room for suppressor bans in this house, you think?

 

[pastera]

… 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 …

Judges and politicians keenly understand this point. Hence their efforts to gaslight the public as to the true depth of the 2nd's intent.

 

[rogersmithiii]

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

Didn't Massachusetts just label the garand as a weapon of war, such that CMP now refuses to ship to Mass?

 

[71montess]

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.

I think your thoughts underestimate the liberals in regards to overturning laws they don’t like. It won’t be any harder for them to just say No, and erase Bruen just because.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

I was reading this morning that the 4th circuit sat on the case for over a year and only released the decision when they were facing another 2nd amendment challenge that they knew they were going to lose. The case was decided almost immediately after hearing all the evidence but shelved and dissenting opinions were not allowed.

Courts are sitting on these decisions while they hope for shifts in scotus makeup. I'm sure that's the case with the MA weapons roster case that was heard in front of the 1st circuit in what seems like forever ago.

Edit: Found the reference from the dissent that the court was just sitting on the case:

 

[Picton]

Is there going to be a room for suppressor bans in this house, you think?

That's the beauty of doing the foundation right: when it's time to do add-ons or renovations later, the house is plenty strong enough for the addition.

 

[Picton]

I think your thoughts underestimate the liberals in regards to overturning laws they don’t like. It won’t be any harder for them to just say No, and erase Bruen just because.

Perhaps.

I think you're saying something similar to what black people said around 1960. Eventually, all the states came around to the idea that civil rights have to apply to everyone.

I did say it would take time. Civil rights usually do, historically.

 

[fishgutzy]

Anti-Constitution judges always add words that are not there. In Heller it refers to "in common use" not "in common use for self defense."
Prior decisions stated that the 2A does cover bearable arms that are useful to the military. This language was in a decision that upheld the ban on sawed off shotguns.
The left can not have it both ways. They cannot ban both weapon not useful to the military and those useful to the military.
Mexico bans all firearms for civilians that are deemed exclusively for use by the military. The cartels have anything they want. Mere mortal citizens are limited to bolt action, breach loader rifles and shotguns, and revolver .38 and smaller. The cartels now control Mexico.

 

[Joeldiaz]

Courts are sitting on these decisions while they hope for shifts in scotus makeup. I'm sure that's the case with the MA weapons roster case that was heard in front of the 1st circuit in what seems like forever ago.

The 1st Circuit actually remanded that case back down to the district court in light of Bruen. It’s currently at the discovery phase:

“Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. D. 46: Having given further consideration to the parties joint statement, D. 46, and the discussion with counsel about their various proposals for the discovery and dispositive motion schedule at the initial scheduling conference, D. 47, the Court ORDERS the following schedule (following the amendment to the pleadings deadline of 3/1/24 previously adopted, D. 47): Fact Discovery to be completed by 8/30/24. Opening expert disclosures by 9/16/24. Rebuttal expert disclosures by 10/15/24. Expert discovery to be completed by 11/15/24. Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment to be filed by 12/16/24. Defendants' opposition and cross motion for summary judgment to be filed by 1/15/25. Plaintiff's reply and opposition to cross motion for summary judgment to be filed by 2/17/25. In light of the adoption of this particular schedule, the Court does not anticipate extension of these deadlines.”

 

[Dennis in MA]

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.”).

Two words. Brown Freaking Bess! Morons. "My FEEEELINGS are in the way of me ruling on this with integrity!!!"

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.

One, you might get. Two? Gonna be tough. I think you might need 3. Because as liberal as Kagan is, she's actually a pretty astute judge and I think her dissents in the past have been because she knew her "side" was going to lose. After 3 pro-2A decisions, if she was the deciding vote, there's a good chance she'd jump ship. Remember, she was Scalia's best friend on the bench. Strange bedfellows on the surface.

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.

Yeah. Can I offer some advice? Don't take that bet. They'll do their crying-in-front-of-the-camera thing. And they'll move on to shipping in more ilegals or raising taxes. Registration is going to fall as hard, if not harder, than the AWB issue. Hell, at the end of this, the entire FA-10 system might be on the table. Imagine mASS acting like virtually every other state. The humanity.

 

[JDL]

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.

We won't have to wait for a hart attack. If Harris becomes our next president the dems will just add 5 more liberal judges so they can control the court. We are heading for a true one party controlled system we will become the new Venasualla.

 

[ThePreBanMan]

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.

I like your rationale and logic. But I think what some of us are impatient with it's the lack of action from groups we give money to that are supposed to represent us. For example, with this new law in Massachusetts, GOAL amd Comm2A probably nipping around the edges of the training requirement. It's like they're afraid to take on a bigger fight. Well, I for one want bold action. I want to see organizations that aren't afraid to throw the ball deep downfield. Enough of this deek and dunk shit. We have been waiting DECADES. The case law exists and is now on our side. Now is the time to be bold, not play footsie with the AG and our hypocrite Gov.

FPC and GOA are getting it done. The NRA, GOAL, Comm2A..... I'm starting to question their value.

 

[Garys]

IIRC, Miller was decided on the basis that a sawed off shot gun was NOT in use as a military weapon and therefore could be banned.
The left ALWAYS wants to have it both ways.

Anti-Constitution judges always add words that are not there. In Heller it refers to "in common use" not "in common use for self defense."
Prior decisions stated that the 2A does cover bearable arms that are useful to the military. This language was in a decision that upheld the ban on sawed off shotguns.
The left can not have it both ways. They cannot ban both weapon not useful to the military and those useful to the military.
Mexico bans all firearms for civilians that are deemed exclusively for use by the military. The cartels have anything they want. Mere mortal citizens are limited to bolt action, breach loader rifles and shotguns, and revolver .38 and smaller. The cartels now control Mexico.

 

[Picton]

Well, I for one want bold action. I want to see organizations that aren't afraid to throw the ball deep downfield. Enough of this deek and dunk shit. We have been waiting DECADES. The case law exists and is now on our side. Now is the time to be bold, not play footsie with the AG and our hypocrite Gov.

I understand that. But the grim truth is that you're not going to get it. That's not the way the courts work. They work incrementally, not in bold swoops.

The other grim truth is that Massachusetts is not going to be at the forefront of any of these fights. As others have posted elsewhere, cases like the one we're discussing in this thread are going to affect MA long before MA affects them. This is why NES pays attention to Maryland gun cases.

Your bold action is to refuse to comply with the new law. That's all you can do, until the courts free us from our own legislature.

FPC and GOA are getting it done. The NRA, GOAL, Comm2A..... I'm starting to question their value.

Their value is obvious, I think. NRA is without doubt the most consequential gun-rights organization in the country, whether you like them or not. They draw 99% of the antis' fire, and in doing so they free organizations like FPC to do their bit. It's an integrated system: all these groups have a role to play.

 

[El_Guapo77]

Will scotus actually take an awb case instead of punting on one as they usually do

 

[VTski4x4]

Will scotus actually take an awb case instead of punting on one as they usually do

If they're going to take any AWB case, it will be this one. See the reasoning earlier in the thread. This was granted cert and then sent back down with explicit instructions to unf*** their decision- they failed to do so.

 

[ThePreBanMan]

I understand that. But the grim truth is that you're not going to get it. That's not the way the courts work. They work incrementally, not in bold swoops.

The other grim truth is that Massachusetts is not going to be at the forefront of any of these fights. As others have posted elsewhere, cases like the one we're discussing in this thread are going to affect MA long before MA affects them. This is why NES pays attention to Maryland gun cases.

Your bold action is to refuse to comply with the new law. That's all you can do, until the courts free us from our own legislature.



Their value is obvious, I think. NRA is without doubt the most consequential gun-rights organization in the country, whether you like them or not. They draw 99% of the antis' fire, and in doing so they free organizations like FPC to do their bit. It's an integrated system: all these groups have a role to play.

If Massachusetts can't be at the forefront of these cases, then shame on us. You can lead, you can follow, or you can get out of the way. It seems gun rights groups in Massachusetts are just inclined to get out of the way. They don't lead, and they don't follow the leaders. I'm disappointed in that. I'm absolutely going to be shifting my giving to those that lead and are getting it done. Those that just get out of the way don't have any real value in my opinion.

 

[Picton]

If Massachusetts can't be at the forefront of these cases, then shame on us. You can lead, you can follow, or you can get out of the way. It seems gun rights groups in Massachusetts are just inclined to get out of the way. They don't lead, and they don't follow the leaders. I'm disappointed in that. I'm absolutely going to be shifting my giving to those that lead and are getting it done. Those that just get out of the way don't have any real value in my opinion.

I don't think you're paying attention to how lawfare works.

We're not at the forefront because there's no way to jump the line. Our legislators were 1-2 years behind these other states in filing their anti-Bruen hissyfit, so MA is going to be 1-2 years behind on reaching SCOTUS. No matter how much money we donate, there's no magic wand anyone can wave that'll make our federal circuit court speed up its rulings just so you can get relief sooner.

It's a timing issue, not a motivation issue. "Shaming" plaintiffs in Massachusetts won't make the clock move differently. Ripe cases are granted cert as they move through the appellate process. If MA had put a case in the pipeline three years ago, we'd be there now. We didn't, because we couldn't; our State was more cautious than to allow a law to get through that would give us the slam-dunk you're looking for. Now that that slam-dunk law has been passed, we're starting late.

I think you're looking at this more simplistically than it deserves.

 

[Garys]

Did you see the video that Jim Wallace put up? The new MA gun law is a complicated shit show. He's asking every gun rights organization to coordinate with GOAL so that not everyone is litigating the same chunks.

As Picton says, NRA is still the 800 pound Gorilla of gun rights organizations. Jim Wallace said years ago that their name is poison in MA, so while they have contributed to GOAL efforts to limit damage under new legislation their name was never mentioned because the cowards in the state house would run away if it were.

Throwing the ball deep down field in this case would be like when Payton Manning threw the ball deep down field in the playoffs against the Patriots. Remember that sad face when his long balls were intercepted in the end zone by the Pats? That would be us.

I sometimes disagree with Picton, but he is absolutely correct here.

I like your rationale and logic. But I think what some of us are impatient with it's the lack of action from groups we give money to that are supposed to represent us. For example, with this new law in Massachusetts, GOAL amd Comm2A probably nipping around the edges of the training requirement. It's like they're afraid to take on a bigger fight. Well, I for one want bold action. I want to see organizations that aren't afraid to throw the ball deep downfield. Enough of this deek and dunk shit. We have been waiting DECADES. The case law exists and is now on our side. Now is the time to be bold, not play footsie with the AG and our hypocrite Gov.

FPC and GOA are getting it done. The NRA, GOAL, Comm2A..... I'm starting to question their value.

 

[Dennis in MA]

I like your rationale and logic. But I think what some of us are impatient with it's the lack of action from groups we give money to that are supposed to represent us. For example, with this new law in Massachusetts, GOAL amd Comm2A probably nipping around the edges of the training requirement. It's like they're afraid to take on a bigger fight. Well, I for one want bold action. I want to see organizations that aren't afraid to throw the ball deep downfield. Enough of this deek and dunk shit. We have been waiting DECADES. The case law exists and is now on our side. Now is the time to be bold, not play footsie with the AG and our hypocrite Gov.

FPC and GOA are getting it done. The NRA, GOAL, Comm2A..... I'm starting to question their value.

Exactly. I mean, if I am having heart surgery, I want every doctor in the hospital in my OR with his hands in my chest. More hands are better, right? Eveyrone get right in there and fix my heart.

I'm going to be there is a LOT more coordination on the part of these groups than you think. ALL of these issues need to be addressed. Which organization takes training versus hi-cap and AWB versus sensitive-places is sort of irrelevant. It's probably going ot take 4-6 different cases to dismantle this. No one judge is going to null'n'void the entire thing. Expect a long haul, short of some really really really specific SC rulings in the meantime.

 

[ThePreBanMan]

I don't think you're paying attention to how lawfare works.

We're not at the forefront because there's no way to jump the line. Our legislators were 1-2 years behind these other states in filing their anti-Bruen hissyfit, so MA is going to be 1-2 years behind on reaching SCOTUS. No matter how much money we donate, there's no magic wand anyone can wave that'll make our federal circuit court speed up its rulings just so you can get relief sooner.

It's a timing issue, not a motivation issue. "Shaming" plaintiffs in Massachusetts won't make the clock move differently. Ripe cases are granted cert as they move through the appellate process. If MA had put a case in the pipeline three years ago, we'd be there now. We didn't, because we couldn't; our State was more cautious than to allow a law to get through that would give us the slam-dunk you're looking for. Now that that slam-dunk law has been passed, we're starting late.

I think you're looking at this more simplistically than it deserves.

Tell me something friend, after the Supreme Court ruled that the government could not ban weapons that were in common use, how many years after that was it that Massachusetts then banned weapons that were in common use. Because I'm pretty sure they've banned weapons that have been in common use since 1994.

 

[Picton]

Tell me something friend, after the Supreme Court ruled that the government could not ban weapons that were in common use, how many years after that was it that Massachusetts then banned weapons that were in common use. Because I'm pretty sure they've banned weapons that have been in common use since 1994.

The legislature was smart. They grandfathered prebans. They’ll always be able to say MA citizens can get these guns, because they can. Therefore there’s no ban, really.

You’re not thinking like a legislator. I mean that as a compliment, but you need that kind of mindset for a fight like this.