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

[Cap'n Mike]

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

It’s definitely going to SCOTUS.
Unknown if SCOTUS will grant Cert, but since they granted Cert once already, it’s very likely.




View: https://x.com/gunpolicy/status/1820906194984198490?s=46

 

[LakeTrout]

It’s definitely going to SCOTUS.
Unknown if SCOTUS will grant Cert, but since they granted Cert once already, it’s very likely.

Thanks for the clarification! Let’s hope for the best.

 

[sbhaven]

Tom Grieve talks about the opinion:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbhTVeD5EY0

 

[Fixxah]

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.

A friend was assembling a sawed off shotgun while a chief of police was putting the moves on his Mom. He said don't do it as my friend would be doing ten in Walpole. My friend was drunk and left it at the desk of the local polo at 1am. I lol'd.

 

[sbhaven]

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.

Also, it should be noted that apparently neither Miller nor his legal council appeared at SCOTUS, only the attorneys for the US Gov were there to argue their side.

 

[chris_1001]

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

If it was not for gunz. HI would be part of Japan.

 

[CatSnoutSoup]

We have zero new positive opinion or dicta from Rahimi … 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

Matter of fact I believe this is actual footage of Merrick Garland on Rahimi’s approach to SCOTUS.

 

[pastera]

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

A better dvro/red flag case would very likely have put us in a better position.

I didn't say Rahimi was bad for us, I was saying that a better plaintiff would have had a better outcome. And since Rahimi has been decided, that avenue is foreclosed. So yes, indirectly Rahimi hurts us.

 

[Garys]

Miller was dead and his attorney for the appeal didn't have any money to travel to DC for the hearing. It was a bag job from start to finish.

Also, it should be noted that apparently neither Miller nor his legal council appeared at SCOTUS, only the attorneys for the US Gov were there to argue their side.

 

[Varmint]

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.

Does it matter, if the SC rules CT’s AR ban unconstitutional do we need the Supreme Court to rule on our own AR ban?

I know such a ruling makes it impossible to prosecute ban violators, but does it make MA’s law invalid or the state is free to ignore it?

 

[Picton]

Does it matter, if the SC rules CT’s AR ban unconstitutional do we need the Supreme Court to rule on our own AR ban?

I know such a ruling makes it impossible to prosecute ban violators, but does it make MA’s law invalid or the state is free to ignore it?

I'm not sure. I don't know how the CT AR ban works.

 

[Varmint]

I'm not sure. I don't know how the CT AR ban works.

I figure if we get a clear ruling that ARs are protected by the constitution, there’s no need for them to rule on MA’s ban, that would be redundant. But if MA ignores the ruling I don’t know what the consequences will be if any.

 

[Picton]

I figure if we get a clear ruling that ARs are protected by the constitution, there’s no need for them to rule on MA’s ban, that would be redundant. But if MA ignores the ruling I don’t know what the consequences will be if any.

It would depend on the wording of the ban, and how it's applied. If CT's law is identical to MA's, then sure, striking down the CT law would strike down the MA law.

But remember Bruen: it struck down NYS' licensing scheme. There was never any expectation that it would eliminate MA's licensing. The Commonwealth did have to change its licensing to accommodate the Bruen opinion, but it stayed in place.

So when SCOTUS strikes down CT's law, there will be parts of that ruling that MA will have to implement. But not necessarily the whole ball of wax. I do think that once SCOTUS starts nuking AWBs, the writing will be on the wall and MA might repeal theirs simply to avoid a SCOTUS loss. Then again, they might make us challenge that law too. Depends on how dickish and spiteful they feel like being.

 

[Joeldiaz]

A better dvro/red flag case would very likely have put us in a better position.

I didn't say Rahimi was bad for us, I was saying that a better plaintiff would have had a better outcome. And since Rahimi has been decided, that avenue is foreclosed. So yes, indirectly Rahimi hurts us.

I disagree about the better outcome. Rahimi was a near unanimous decision. Even the sole dissenter, Justice Thomas, agreed with much of what the majority concluded. He simply disagreed with the majority on a very narrow point about the historical analogues being sufficient to uphold the statute in question. Justice Thomas is the absolute most pro-2A on SCOTUS. He was of a similar mind as the rest of the court, meaning a different plaintiff wouldn’t have made a real tangible difference here.

The thing that you also have to keep in mind, and is another reason I disagree about a different outcome, is that conservatives actually are typically harder on crime than liberals and they hate criminals. Therefore, in a conservative majority SCOTUS, I think these prohibited persons cases are actually not the best cases for us in the 2A movement to be litigating right now, even with supposedly sympathetic plaintiffs like Range and Daniels. We should be focused on other cases with absolutely unquestionable plaintiffs. I’m talking things like AWBs, age restrictions, sensitive places, ghost guns, etc. Cases where the character of the plaintiff is not in question and the court can focus instead on the conduct itself.

 

[drgrant]

I disagree about the better outcome. Rahimi was a near unanimous decision. Even the sole dissenter, Justice Thomas, agreed with much of what the majority concluded. He simply disagreed with the majority on a very narrow point about the historical analogues being sufficient to uphold the statute in question. Justice Thomas is the absolute most pro-2A on SCOTUS. He was of a similar mind as the rest of the court, meaning a different plaintiff wouldn’t have made a real tangible difference here.

The thing that you also have to keep in mind, and is another reason I disagree about a different outcome, is that conservatives actually are typically harder on crime than liberals and they hate criminals. Therefore, in a conservative majority SCOTUS, I think these prohibited persons cases are actually not the best cases for us in the 2A movement to be litigating right now, even with supposedly sympathetic plaintiffs like Range and Daniels. We should be focused on other cases with absolutely unquestionable plaintiffs. I’m talking things like AWBs, age restrictions, sensitive places, ghost guns, etc. Cases where the character of the plaintiff is not in question and the court can focus instead on the conduct itself.

Lol unanimous makes it a great case? They were unanimous in deciding that they had an easy out.

It's not that difficult to get an RO plaintiff from mass that's basically unimpeachable from a criminal and character standpoint; because there's virtually no or limited due process, bogus claims, even provably bogus ones, are allowed to stand by default. It's not just an MA thing either; thousands of family law attorneys encourage typically female plaintiffs to file bogus DV ROs to get the upper hand in custody or divorce battles because they know the odds are long of their client even being taken to task over it.

It almost makes me think that Rahimi was a deliberate well poisoning job. It now serves as a free bingo sqare for them to dodge Lautenberg etc, forever. The only good outcome is it potentially stops another pile of steaming trash on DV from getting cert.

 

[pastera]

I disagree about the better outcome. Rahimi was a near unanimous decision. Even the sole dissenter, Justice Thomas, agreed with much of what the majority concluded. He simply disagreed with the majority on a very narrow point about the historical analogues being sufficient to uphold the statute in question. Justice Thomas is the absolute most pro-2A on SCOTUS. He was of a similar mind as the rest of the court, meaning a different plaintiff wouldn’t have made a real tangible difference here.

The thing that you also have to keep in mind, and is another reason I disagree about a different outcome, is that conservatives actually are typically harder on crime than liberals and they hate criminals. Therefore, in a conservative majority SCOTUS, I think these prohibited persons cases are actually not the best cases for us in the 2A movement to be litigating right now, even with supposedly sympathetic plaintiffs like Range and Daniels. We should be focused on other cases with absolutely unquestionable plaintiffs. I’m talking things like AWBs, age restrictions, sensitive places, ghost guns, etc. Cases where the character of the plaintiff is not in question and the court can focus instead on the conduct itself.

My point is that a non violent PP is an entirely different case which likely would have created a better outcome
The reason for the 8:1 in Rahimi is the outcome reflects him being a scumbag just as much or more than the laws actually in question.

I agree with your point on the hard on crime stance of the conservatives.
And that is why a better plaintiff creating case law in a less contentious but related area is preferred.

 

[Cap'n Mike]

Does it matter, if the SC rules CT’s AR ban unconstitutional do we need the Supreme Court to rule on our own AR ban?

I know such a ruling makes it impossible to prosecute ban violators, but does it make MA’s law invalid or the state is free to ignore it?

It’s a good question.
Ceatano struck down Massachusetts stun gun ban, but Rhode Island still has one.
Then again Ceatano was a Per Curiam decision, which I beleive is different then a other SCOTUS Decision.

 

[Varmint]

It’s a good question.
Ceatano struck down Massachusetts stun gun ban, but Rhode Island still has one.
Then again Ceatano was a Per Curiam decision, which I beleive is different then a other SCOTUS Decision.

I suspect that it’s a situation where legislatures were always expected to abide Supreme Court decisions but there isn’t a clear path when they don’t. Our government is failing and this is part of it.

 

[firestorm]

It’s a good question.
Ceatano struck down Massachusetts stun gun ban, but Rhode Island still has one.
Then again Ceatano was a Per Curiam decision, which I beleive is different then a other SCOTUS Decision.

Is the rhode island one being enforced or simply on the books but worthless to them? It seems that it was stuck down march of 2022 and the AG didn't appeal.

 

[Individualist]

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.

The prudent answer, especially at a time like this, is to support all who make an effort to support us and break down the opposition. If you can only support one group and believe theirs is the only avenue to success then that is your call. It is not a bad one, as it’s always good to help keep a winner winning.

My belief is that putting pressure on the Libs from multiple fronts is ultimately a better winning strategy. You never know when the actions of one group will “pop”, just like this case now that has moved to the front of the line. Personally I want to hear things go “pop, pop, pop, pop, pop,,,, and continue for way more than 10 pops.

 

[Cap'n Mike]

Is the rhode island one being enforced or simply on the books but worthless to them? It seems that it was stuck down march of 2022 and the AG didn't appeal.

You are most likely correct.
I just did a quick search to see what States Stun guns were illegal to possess, and RI came up in 2 or 3 of the lists I found..

 

[pastera]

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

When the 4th circuit openly and admittedly defies the Supreme Court it's highly likely they will take it

When the dissent states the circuit withheld a panel majority opinion overturning the ban by withholding the panel's dissenting opinion and then takes the case en banc in order to correct the panel, yeah Roberts is going to be frothing at the mouth pissed off.
Roberts number one thing is the courts image as an impartial and objective seeker of the law. The 4th just dropped an upper decker, humped both the wife and daughter plus tossed the dog on the roof with the keys.

I'd say this one not only gets cert, I'm pretty certain we aren't waiting until June for an opinion.

What I would like to see is every judge involved in the foul play removed from the bench and lose their pension for cause.

 

[CatSnoutSoup]

Roberts is going to be frothing at the mouth pissed off... I'd say this one not only gets cert, I'm pretty certain we aren't waiting until June for an opinion.

 

[Lokdog]

Is the rhode island one being enforced or simply on the books but worthless to them? It seems that it was stuck down march of 2022 and the AG didn't appeal.

I haven't tried to buy one yet but my buddy's son did last year and he had it delivered to his house

 

[HARRYM]

Leftist States will tell SCOTUS to eff off.

Leftist Judges will tell SCOTUS to eff off.

Biden told SCOTUS to eff off.

At the end of the day what can SCOTUS really do once the Leftists drop all pretenses and consider themselves the final rule of law.

 

[sbhaven]

Miller was dead and his attorney for the appeal didn't have any money to travel to DC for the hearing. It was a bag job from start to finish.

Miller was apparently killed in April 1939, the case was heard/argued before SCOTUS in March 1939. And yes a bag job from start to finish.

 

[sbhaven]

I'm not sure. I don't know how the CT AR ban works.

If you care, it can be found here: Sec. 53-202a. Assault weapons: Definitions.
And because of the way it's written the old repealed AWB still applies: 2012 Connecticut General Statutes :: Title 53 - Crimes :: Chapter 943 - Offenses Against Public Peace and Safety :: Section 53-202a - Assault weapons: Definition.
Yes, in CT there are actually two AWB's a firearm has to get through to be legal. One could have a firearm comply with the current CT AWB but violate the old (as the law was on Jan 1, 2013) CT AWB.

 

[M125X]

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.

This right here is spot on.

 

[Varmint]

Leftist States will tell SCOTUS to eff off.

Leftist Judges will tell SCOTUS to eff off.

Biden told SCOTUS to eff off.

At the end of the day what can SCOTUS really do once the Leftists drop all pretenses and consider themselves the final rule of law.

I don't think they will do this, the reason is ignoring the Supreme Court guts the power of the federal government, because if left states start to ignore the federal government, so will the right states.

Biden and the left love a powerful federal government so I don't think they will undermine its power.

 

[1903Collector]

Leftist States will tell SCOTUS to eff off.

Leftist Judges will tell SCOTUS to eff off.

Biden told SCOTUS to eff off.

At the end of the day what can SCOTUS really do once the Leftists drop all pretenses and consider themselves the final rule of law.

And that's pretty much where we are today, after that there really is only one remedy.