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

[Lank]

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 againÐð

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.

Always the sober voice of reason!

 

[Picton]

Always the sober voice of reason!

Believe me, I'm not happy about it either. Just because I understand it doesn't mean I like it.

The immediate solution is just to ignore the law, and I do that. But pitching fits is no way to engage in a long-drawn-out legal campaign. You have to realize that your enemy's flank is often the most vulnerable part; you get ahead, sometimes, by going around. Charging straight ahead is often a bad play.

 

[HorizontalHunter]

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:

Lawfare is real.

 

[pastera]

I quickly read the majority and dropped some notes
SCOTUS essentially must take this case as the en banc's opinion here is simply sedition with respect to the Supreme Court's higher authority over them

They mention interest balancing is no longer allowed, toss a finger to SCOTUS, then proceed to balance interests of the state over those of the people

 

[PeterC]

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.

Exactly.

 

[HorizontalHunter]

I quickly read the majority and dropped some notes
SCOTUS essentially must take this case as the en banc's opinion here is simply sedition with respect to the Supreme Court's higher authority over them

They mention interest balancing is no longer allowed, toss a finger to SCOTUS, then proceed to balance interests of the state over those of the people

Just like Hawaii.

If SCOTUS can’t reign these lower courts in they will become irrelevant.

 

[Garys]

Not unless you have a death wish. Same with court cases like this. You want the best lawyer for this kind of case (Constitutional Law), and you also want a perfect client. If you don't have that, you are very likely to end up with a result like Rahimi.

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.

 

[Dennis in MA]

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.

Brown vs. Board of Education was what? 1958.

When was the "Busing crisis" in Boston? 1976?

You only get one attempt at being ahead of the curve. We blew ours 250 years ago. ROFL!!!

 

[HorizontalHunter]

You only get one attempt at being ahead of the curve. We blew ours 250 years ago. ROFL!!!

“Shall not be infringed” is pretty freaking clear.

 

[pastera]

Just like Hawaii.

If SCOTUS can’t reign these lower courts in they will become irrelevant.

No,
Hawaii states that they are using their constituion
The 4th circuit thumbs it nose at the SC and says not going to apply SC doctrine so piss off

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

 

[pastera]

“Shall not be infringed” is pretty freaking clear.

exactly
Just like many of the other infringements on civil rights, gun laws all started with racist and/or xenophobic roots.
The majority ignored the laws since those laws were meant for a "lessor" class of people - kinda like the carve outs in the current laws for the other side of the thin blue line.

 

[Picton]

Brown vs. Board of Education was what? 1958.

When was the "Busing crisis" in Boston? 1976?

'54. But yuuuuup. And plenty of other municipalities in the country took even longer than that to obey Brown.

No,
Hawaii states that they are using their constituion
The 4th circuit thumbs it nose at the SC and says not going to apply SC doctrine so piss off

Yep. Separate constitutional issues.

 

[Joeldiaz]

Not unless you have a death wish. Same with court cases like this. You want the best lawyer for this kind of case (Constitutional Law), and you also want a perfect client. If you don't have that, you are very likely to end up with a result like Rahimi.

Can we please stop talking about how bad Rahimi was? It was still a very big win for 2A, even if the right result wasn’t reached by the majority. The result was a very narrowly tailored ruling against Rahimi that still very much affirmed and embraced Heller, McDonald, Caetano & Bruen. It wasn’t the slam dunk loss against 2A that anti-gunners were hoping for, and it will still be very difficult for honest courts to uphold many modern day gun control laws.

 

[pastera]

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.

From my quick review of the majority they went well past hissy fit all the way to the edge of sedition if not over.

The en banc court "rescued" the circuit from a "bad" panel opinion aligning with the SC - now they have put all eleven ban states regimes on review in front of a pissed of SCOTUS
They should hope that neither Roberts or Thomas write the opinion in the upcoming case.

Roberts begrudgingly supported the prior opinions - He must be pissed to the core with this opinion and ready to rain down hellfire.

 

[pastera]

Can we please stop talking about how bad Rahimi was? It was still a very big win for 2A, even if the right result wasn’t reached by the majority. The result was a very narrowly tailored ruling against Rahimi that still very much affirmed and embraced Heller, McDonald, Caetano & Bruen. It wasn’t the slam dunk loss against 2A that anti-gunners were hoping for, and it will still be very difficult for honest courts to uphold many modern day gun control laws.

The highlighted portion is the only part that is positive
We have zero new positive opinion or dicta from Rahimi that we wouldn't have received from a case involving a non-violent felon. However because the bad plaintiff we now have an affirmation of red flag and domestic violence laws that would never been as strong if a good plaintiff had made it instead.

We didn't need the four pillars reinforced
We needed due process enforced - which we didn't get because of a dirtbag's actions hit the court well before a non-violent paperwork felon got there

 

[Dennis in MA]

“Shall not be infringed” is pretty freaking clear.

Shall Not Segregate was pretty freaking clear.

I was living in Cleveland at the time of hte Boston Busing crisis. I recall on SAt Am cartoons tehre was that little news break. What was it called???? That was front-and-center one Saturday morning. My brother and I all sort of about it. We moved back not long after. (And it was 1974 - I thought it was later but I know I was pretty young as well.)

'54. But yuuuuup. And plenty of other municipalities in the country took even longer than that to obey Brown.



Yep. Separate constitutional issues.

I was close. Not a heavily discussed case in 2024.

And let's not forget that the Boston Busing Crisis was argued in federal court. Boston lost. Argued in appeals. Boston lost. ARGUED TO THE US SUPREME COURT. Boston lost. LOL.

My grandfather, a spectacular Irish racist from Southie complained about it for years. Imagine his dilemma in 2024 (he'd be 108). Vote for a black woman or a Republican. LOL

 

[Picton]

I was close. Not a heavily discussed case in 2024.

And let's not forget that the Boston Busing Crisis was argued in federal court. Boston lost. Argued in appeals. Boston lost. ARGUED TO THE US SUPREME COURT. Boston lost. LOL.

My grandfather, a spectacular Irish racist from Southie complained about it for years. Imagine his dilemma in 2024 (he'd be 108). Vote for a black woman or a Republican. LOL

I bring it up here a lot. It's a very good analogue to Bruen: a landmark SCOTUS case with clear reasoning and unequivocal opinions, which states nevertheless felt justified in thumbing their noses at because they were pandering to their citizens, who didn't understand the Constitution. It's the same situation we're going through.

The modern civil rights era started with Brown and it took two decades before the last states finally fell in line, kicking and screaming the whole way. I'd expect RKBA to be only slightly faster than that; this will take a LONG TIME. But it will happen.

It's only been two years and look at what our side is already accomplishing.

 

[Night_solstice]

Shall Not Segregate was pretty freaking clear.

I was living in Cleveland at the time of hte Boston Busing crisis. I recall on SAt Am cartoons tehre was that little news break. What was it called???? That was front-and-center one Saturday morning. My brother and I all sort of about it. We moved back not long after. (And it was 1974 - I thought it was later but I know I was pretty young as well.)

The segment was 'In The News', and had a globe that would 'rotate in' and you'd hear that voice say 'In The News"...

 

[drgrant]

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?

Every anti that isnt a complete moron, knows that this is just a big virtue signaling drama show... and delaying the inevitable drags out the "value" of that show for them. They know their movement is dying so they act out in response. It's like a petulant child with a seemingly never-ending temper tantrum that will eventually culminate with it being stabbed in the ass when the adults come in with the needle of the sedative. And when the snotgobblers are sedated and or removed, the silence will be blissful.

 

[eboos]

… 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 …

Exactly. The right to self defense is as natural as the right to breath air. It wasn't addressed in the constitution because it need not be addressed (at least they thought so at the time). The 2A addressed the prohibition on limiting the right to KABA as a means of defending against a rogue government and tyranny. In exercise of your natural right to self defense, you may use whatever is at your disposal.

 

[Picton]

Every anti that isnt a complete moron, knows that this is just a big virtue signaling drama show... and delaying the inevitable drags out the "value" of that show for them. They know their movement is dying so they act out in response.

Again, not to keep harping on this, but desegregation offers parallels: George Wallace did his little tantrum in the schoolhouse door in 1963. It didn't work, just like the Maryland ruling won't work. He ran for President in 1964 and 1968, however, and got a lot of support because he could claim to be The Man Who Stood Up To Desegregation. His virtue signal gave him credibility within racist circles.

Any ambitious lefty politician or judge who is currently ranting against RKBA has that same calculus in mind: they know their virtue-signal is ultimately going to fail, but they're establishing (or maintaining) their anti-gun bona fides for later. A federal appellate judge who issues a blistering ruling against Bruen knows that fellow antis will see and appreciate that, and that five or ten years down the line they might nab an appointment to a state supreme court in a lefty state. Or maybe they'll run for elected office. Or get a seat on the board of Moms Demand. Or whatever.

They're not dragging this out because they think they'll win. There are other reasons.

 

[pastera]

From the dissent - footnote 2

After hearing the case in December 2022, the initial panel majority reached a decision and promptly circulated a draft opinion. Yet for more than a year, no dissent was circulated. The panel thus held the proposed opinion in accordance with our custom that majority and dissenting opinions be published together. A year later—as the proposed opinion sat idle—a different panel heard arguments in United States v. Price (No. 22-4609), which also involved interpreting and applying Bruen. The Price panel quickly circulated a unanimous opinion that reached a conclusion at odds with the Bianchi majority’s year-old proposed opinion. Facing two competing proposed published opinions, the Court declined to let the earlier circulated opinion control. Rather, in January 2024, we “invoked the once-extraordinary mechanism of initial-en-banc review.” Mayor of Balt. v. Azar, 799 F. App’x 193, 195–96 (4th Cir. 2020) (Richardson, J., dissenting). I hope that we will not find ourselves in this posture again soon. Cf. United States v. Gibbs, 905 F.3d 768, 770 (4th Cir. 2018) (Wynn, J., voting separately) (suggesting that majority opinions may be issued without awaiting dissenting opinions to prohibit those dissenting opinions from exercising a “pocket veto” to “deny or delay fairness and justice”).

So the court knew that the majority opinion in the panel would moot the US v Price case but wanted Price to come to decision without the controlling opinion from Bianchi.
They stalled by not publishing their dissent while Price moves forward.

If this narrative is true then the 4th circuit needs to be purged of those that allowed this to happen - There is little question that this type of behavior is what the constitution speaks to in order to remove a judge.

 

[HorizontalHunter]

No,
Hawaii states that they are using their constituion
The 4th circuit thumbs it nose at the SC and says not going to apply SC doctrine so piss off

So Hawaiis’ Constitution overturns the Constitution of the United States that all the states voted on?

Yep. Separate constitutional issues.

Then doesn’t the constitution of the United states supersede and isn’t the Supreme Court Final Arbitor?

Serious questions. The nuances get me every time. Probably because recess was my favorite subject.

 

[LakeTrout]

This case deserves its own thread, as it has a really good chance of going to SCOTUS next session

From the thread title, it sounds like it IS going to SCOTUS. Is it not?

 

[LakeTrout]

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.

I get what you’re saying, but Roe was a huge stretch that was justified using an amendment that literally had nothing to do with the subject at hand, nor could the framers have ever imagined that it would. The 2A directly speaks to a well armed militia and the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

 

[Picton]

Then doesn’t the constitution of the United states supersede and isn’t the Supreme Court Final Arbitor?

Serious questions. The nuances get me every time. Probably because recess was my favorite subject.

I think it does, definitely, but what I think doesn't matter. Courts exist in order to make lawyers money sort out weird legal questions, and this is most definitely a weird legal question: not just whether the US Constitution is supreme (it is), but what parts of it are supreme and what the state constitution says in the spirit with which it was written... at that time. Meaning, when Hawaii wrote their constitution, what was their understanding of the federal RKBA, and were those clauses affected by that understanding? How was it interpreted at that time?

All these things can be understood, but that takes research. Which takes time. Which pays money to lawyers. So the short answer is "yes," but the longer answer is probably, "yes, because ________" And the "because" part is important for future litigation.

So they want to get it right.

 

[HorizontalHunter]

I think it does, definitely, but what I think doesn't matter. Courts exist in order to make lawyers money sort out weird legal questions, and this is most definitely a weird legal question: not just whether the US Constitution is supreme (it is), but what parts of it are supreme and what the state constitution says in the spirit with which it was written... at that time. Meaning, when Hawaii wrote their constitution, what was their understanding of the federal RKBA, and were those clauses affected by that understanding? How was it interpreted at that time?

All these things can be understood, but that takes research. Which takes time. Which pays money to lawyers. So the short answer is "yes," but the longer answer is probably, "yes, because ________" And the "because" part is important for future litigation.

So they want to get it right.

As always, thank you for the explanation and clarification.

Bob

 

[Joeldiaz]

The highlighted portion is the only part that is positive
We have zero new positive opinion or dicta from Rahimi that we wouldn't have received from a case involving a non-violent felon. However because the bad plaintiff we now have an affirmation of red flag and domestic violence laws that would never been as strong if a good plaintiff had made it instead.

You’re right, Rahimi is not a major “victory” in the literal sense of the word. However, keep in mind: the 2A movement didn’t choose to push forward the Rahimi case, it was the anti-2A DOJ. Rahimi was represented by a public defender, not by any of the pro-2A organizations. They didn’t want to touch Rahimi with a 10 foot pole for the reasons you stated. We were going to lose this case no matter what, and in a war sometimes you need to lose a few battles to ultimately win the war. This was about as small as a loss as you could hope for, which should absolutely be counted as a win.

We didn't need the four pillars reinforced
We needed due process enforced - which we didn't get because of a dirtbag's actions hit the court well before a non-violent paperwork felon got there

Due process wasn’t gonna be enforced even if Rahimi was a saint, for the simple reason that it wasn’t involved in the case. Rahimi himself consented to the DVRO, and his attorney waived all due process arguments during the proceedings.

 

[Joeldiaz]

Can we please stop talking about how bad Rahimi was? It was still a very big win for 2A, even if the right result wasn’t reached by the majority. The result was a very narrowly tailored ruling against Rahimi that still very much affirmed and embraced Heller, McDonald, Caetano & Bruen. It wasn’t the slam dunk loss against 2A that anti-gunners were hoping for, and it will still be very difficult for honest courts to uphold many modern day gun control laws.

Anyone who seriously thinks Rahimi was a major loss should go read Mark Smith’s article in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy,

MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING: RAHIMI REINFORCES BRUEN AND HELLER​

Much Ado About Nothing: Rahimi Reinforces Bruen and Heller – Mark W. Smith

Much Ado About Nothing: Rahimi Reinforces Bruen and Heller Mark W. Smith* On June 21, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in United States v. Rahimi.[1] In that case, the…

journals.law.harvard.edu

 

[dixidawg]

The games they play….


View: https://youtu.be/DocPn4HeXIM?si=UjKnnCm2pcvvLyOv