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

Parker Schreiber said:
Rhode Island was sued, and a Federal Judge ruled their ban unconstitutional and a permanent injunction against enforcement was issued in 2022. I can't find any record of an appeal, and a bill to treat stun guns like handguns for purposes of permitting and carrying appears to have died in committee.
Click to expand...
Lucky. CT mandates one be 21 and have a state issued pistol permit, or pistol eligibility certificate, long gun purchase certificate or ammunition purcahse certificate. All require fees and background check., the pistol permit/cert and long gun cert both require a safety course as well.
Sec. 53-206k. Conditions for sale or transfer of electronic defense weapons. Penalty. Any person who sells or transfers an electronic defense weapon, as defined in section 53a-3, to any person who is under twenty-one years of age or does not possess a permit or certificate issued under the provisions of section 29-28, 29-36f, 29-37p or 29-38n shall be guilty of a class D felony.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Dennis in MA said:
Lucky??? Permits are infringements.
Click to expand...
Uh of course they are. Was simply saying that they were lucky that a bill to treat stun guns like handguns for purposes of permitting and carrying died. Where as CT Democrats passed their stupid bill to mandate a state issued permit or certificate to buy and carry a stun gun back in 2021.
 
Another Mark Smith video.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUeC9l-ae1o

The U.S. Supreme Court is deliberating over the AR 15 ban case and the magazine ban case and Mark Smith discusses what this means on this Four Boxes Diner episode.

Edit to add: He doesn't think there will be a Per Curium opinion like Caetano. He thinks a cert grant this term is exceedingly unlikely. He thinks an outright denial no dissent/opinion while possible is low. He bets that there 70% chance that there may be a denial with dissent from one or more justices. He also thinks it possible they may push both cases into next term to give lawyers more time to work on the cases. He thinks repeated relists while possible is also low. He thinks a relist to the Feb 21st conference may be possible.
Guesses.jpg
 
Last edited:
Would a denial with dissent change anything? Or essentially it has the same outcome as a denial without dissent except we feel better knowing someone didn’t agree with the decision?
 
VTski4x4 said:
Any denial and we are f***ed.
Click to expand...
Unless there is some kind of 4D chess being played, denying Snope which was already GVR'd due to Bruen back to the 4th who's en banc panel basically took a big dump on Bruen an sent it back to SCOTUS; would be a serious bitch move by SCOTUS. It makes them look weak and indecisive. It would embolden blue states even more. It would likely embolden CO to pass their proposed semiauto ban. It would potentially mean there will be a year or two delay another case works it way through the circuit court(s) to be petitioned to the SCOTUS.
 
sbhaven said:
Unless there is some kind of 4D chess being played, denying Snope which was already GVR'd due to Bruen back to the 4th who's en banc panel basically took a big dump on Bruen an sent it back to SCOTUS; would be a serious bitch move by SCOTUS. It makes them look weak and indecisive. It would embolden blue states even more. It would likely embolden CO to pass their proposed semiauto ban. It would potentially mean there will be a year or two delay another case works it way through the circuit court(s) to be petitioned to the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...
There are a few cases out of Illinois in the pipeline.
No need to wait 3-5 years for a freshly started case
 
Coyote33 said:
The more I think about it, the more I think they are just stalling so states can put up more bans, as someone said earlier. Then when enough states do that, they will pull 2A out of a hat, and say "This is a state's rights issue, we'll let states handle it.", after it is already all over for 2A. I really hope not, and hope something positive happens Monday, but after Ch. 180's middle of the night antics whacked us all here in MA, nothing surprises me any more.
Click to expand...
What I said earlier.
This is what I was thinking there:
pastera said:
.... SCOTUS may want to combine a specific case or cases in order to draw in a large number of Amici on both sides allowing them to absorb all of the end-around arguments to any opinion they issue.
Click to expand...

But this seems to go against that:
pastera said:
They cannot - they are tied to the facts in evidence of the case before them and existing case law.
Which is why they call for amici for many cases.
Click to expand...

Again, this seems to agree with what I was thinking (top):
AMV said:
One of the issues that has always concerned me, the longer the court waits to decide this stuff the more blue states pass bans on certain types of weapons, therefore making the usage of those weapon "less common" May be a flawed way to look at it but take text, history and tradition and common usage and ask how it can be applied to machine guns now.
I am 100% confident the court will do right by striking down AWB and MAG bans, I'm beginning to question when, or how, but I am sure there is a plan, or the cases would already have been denied. A game of chess, and all we can do is speculate what is inside the head of the court.
Click to expand...



Why do they drag their feet? Somebody needs to light a fire under their @$$e$. There should be a timeline for these things.
sbhaven said:
there will be a year or two delay another case works it way through the circuit court(s) to be petitioned to the SCOTUS
Click to expand...
pastera said:
No need to wait 3-5 years for a freshly started case
Click to expand...
 
pastera said:
This was partly my thoughts - SCOTUS may want to combine a specific case or cases in order to draw in a large number of Amici on both sides allowing them to absorb all of the end-around arguments to any opinion they issue.

But I'm in full on dreaming (nightmare) coping mode about this right now - SCOTUS is not acting rationally. This shit didn't even happen with abortion cases that were objectively much more politically controversial
Click to expand...
To the best of my knowledge, none of the SCOTUS justices are 'gun people.' Frequently there are technical things involved in a case, so the justices need time for their assistants and clerks to research the issue and present it to them for consideration.

They're being asked to decide about ARs and "assault weapons." Hell, most people think that civilian ARs are machine guns. Add in the issue of magazine capacity and they have a lot of things to learn and they have to look at it through the lens of the Constitution.

I'm hoping that this delay is because they're doing their 'homework.' 🤞
 
center442 said:
To the best of my knowledge, none of the SCOTUS justices are 'gun people.' Frequently there are technical things involved in a case, so the justices need time for their assistants and clerks to research the issue and present it to them for consideration.

They're being asked to decide about ARs and "assault weapons." Hell, most people think that civilian ARs are machine guns. Add in the issue of magazine capacity and they have a lot of things to learn and they have to look at it through the lens of the Constitution.

I'm hoping that this delay is because they're doing their 'homework.' 🤞
Click to expand...
That would be the only reason they wouldn't grant cert for this term that's not a political (or personal in Roberts case) reason. If they don't grant cert sometime this year for next term then I take that to mean they never will because there's not a need for 2 yrs of "homework" on this kind of case. Anything longer would just be to delay the case until a less sensative 2A case gets granted cert and ruled on to allow the court to GVR Snope again as a delay tactic so that it never has to look political in neither granting nor denying the case.

I'm afraid with Roberts, that's exactly what is happening.

Best we can get out of this court for 2A is stuff like approved handgun rosters tossed out, storage laws removed, and maybe out of state handgun purchases.
 
drgrant said:
She's dead now, but theres always Helen Thomas.... [rofl]

View attachment 958899
Click to expand...


466397687_9326790850667329_6845820015861191037_n.jpg


peruse this FB page to see a curated collection of the best Helen Thomas Moist Memes.
www.facebook.com

Helen Thomas is MOIST

Helen Thomas is MOIST. 62 likes. This page is all about the glorious moisture of the late Helen Thomas. All Helen Thomas moisture memes will be welcome here. #MoistLivesMatter
www.facebook.com www.facebook.com
 
Coyote33 said:
What I said earlier.
This is what I was thinking there:


But this seems to go against that:


Again, this seems to agree with what I was thinking (top):




Why do they drag their feet? Somebody needs to light a fire under their @$$e$. There should be a timeline for these things.
Click to expand...
SCOTUS calls for Aminus Briefs so that there is a complete set of facts in evidence.
My two statements that you quoted have nothing that disagree.
Briefs are word limited therefore each Amici can bring in those facts that are most important to them thereby building a more complete picture.
 
center442 said:
To the best of my knowledge, none of the SCOTUS justices are 'gun people.' Frequently there are technical things involved in a case, so the justices need time for their assistants and clerks to research the issue and present it to them for consideration.

They're being asked to decide about ARs and "assault weapons." Hell, most people think that civilian ARs are machine guns. Add in the issue of magazine capacity and they have a lot of things to learn and they have to look at it through the lens of the Constitution.

I'm hoping that this delay is because they're doing their 'homework.' 🤞
Click to expand...
We lost the only gun guy in Scalia.
And I think he was just a casual gun guy into hunting.
 
HARRYM said:
He also said banning machine guns was appropriate.
Click to expand...
Once something is established as "truth" or "unthinkable not to be so", reversiing it is very difficult.

For example, the battle for restoring gun rights to non-violent felons will probably never be won.
 

Similar threads

Garland v. VanDerStok
Replies
0
Views
103
lutstribe
L
SCOTUS denies cert on two 2A cases.
Replies
2
Views
359
MickeyD’s
M
Run to Home Base Fundraising
Replies
1
Views
78
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
744
Cuz
Cuz
Back
Top Bottom