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

[pastera]

Will do, although it increasingly seems those in positions of power get there due to having such evil afflictions with subtle silken support.

Even Reagan said hold my beer in the ‘94 ban.

We want to enjoy our 2a rights so we can protect against those most likely to take away our comfortable life - violent criminals and tyrannical governments.

After a lifetime of government paid protection laying the foundation for a tyrannical government they have the same goal - keep those that want to take away their comfortable life from possessing the tools to do so.

 

[T-Unit]

Read the 4th's opinion AND the dissent
I can't see a world where Roberts doesn't take on this case unless the Dems have a couple of terabytes of kiddie porn lined up for his hard drive just in case.

Only takes 4 to grant cert. Unless Amy Barrett is being blackmailed by some Everytown affiliated pool boys, the case is getting cert with Roberts or not.

 

[EMTDAD]

Even Reagan said hold my beer in the ‘94 ban.

wut? Reagan was 6 yrs out of office by 1994?

 

[pastera]

Only takes 4 to grant cert. Unless Amy Barrett is being blackmailed by some Everytown affiliated pool boys, the case is getting cert with Roberts or not.

But it takes 5 to win - so Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett need either Alito or Roberts
Yes, I am placing Alito into the squishy side on this one based on the wording in a few of his concurrences.

This will be a strong pro 2a 5:4 or a much more narrow 6:3 if both Roberts and Alito join.

The wild card is Alito - he is great on baseline 2A but is not certain at the edges. However, like Roberts he places the Court on a pedestal and the 4th just upper-decked that pedestal.

 

[pastera]

Will do, although it increasingly seems those in positions of power get there due to having such evil afflictions with subtle silken support.

Even Reagan said hold my beer in the ‘94 ban.

By the 94 AWB Reagan was simply not Reagan.
He never was a strong 2a proponent but to link him to the 94 ban is rewriting the history of his unfortunate decline.

 

[Individualist]

Tin foil time the left wanted to make this election about guns like 2022 was about abortion and sat on a case until election

I had the exact same tinfoil thought

 

[VTski4x4]

Don't forget Jackson and Sotomyer slipping up in a previous dissent and admitting that AR15s are in common use. Oooops

 

[pastera]

Tin foil time the left wanted to make this election about guns like 2022 was about abortion and sat on a case until election

No they sat on Bianchi because the panel majority had written a very strong 2A opinion and the 4th as a whole couldn't get over their political ideological positions.
Read the en banc dissent - I'm certain they simply updated the already written majority to publish with the en banc.
It looks like it was prewritten to be the pro-2a split for a scotus run against a loss in the 7th. It ended up going against the 4th itself

 

[pastera]

Don't forget Jackson and Sotomyer slipping up in a previous dissent and admitting that AR15s are in common use. Oooops

But that's not what they are trying to push - the narrative is "commonly used for self-defense" not the actual "commonly used for lawful purpose"

 

[Varmint]

Read the 4th's opinion AND the dissent
I can't see a world where Roberts doesn't take on this case unless the Dems have a couple of terabytes of kiddie porn lined up for his hard drive just in case.

They can’t use those pictures, too many Dem Congressmen in them.

 

[DJBrad]

Read the 4th's opinion AND the dissent
I can't see a world where Roberts doesn't take on this case unless the Dems have a couple of terabytes of kiddie porn lined up for his hard drive just in case.

Just finished it up.


The dissent was the real “dangerous and unusual” weapon and quite possibly in WMD territory. Very well written with extremely solid ground laid via case law.


I still want a “launcegay” and a “dag” though. Dangerous and unusual weapons should be allowed for both self defense and for protection against violent tyranny.

 

[DJBrad]

wut? Reagan was 6 yrs out of office by 1994?

Yes, but I see his support of the bill and balk. This mainly toward NES poster who decry certain Conservatives as poor on 2A. It’s soley for the people to decide what they can possess and use for defense.

 

[DJBrad]

But that's not what they are trying to push - the narrative is "commonly used for self-defense" not the actual "commonly used for lawful purpose"

How about simply “common use”.

 

[dcmdon]

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

That's not something you want to bring up. Since the intent of the 2A was very clear, especially if you read Federalist 19 (?About 90% sure on the number) . It protected weapons of war. Not weapons used for recreation or hunting.

 

[dcmdon]

What is best guess when they will either grant or deny certiorari????

 

[EMTDAD]

That's not something you want to bring up. Since the intent of the 2A was very clear, especially if you read Federalist 19 (?About 90% sure on the number) . It protected weapons of war. Not weapons used for recreation or hunting.

yeah.. just noting the hypocrisy of the term "weapons of war"... ban ARs, while .gov (CMP) sells actual "weapons of war".

 

[StevieP]

how can something be in common use if it's banned?

 

[pastera]

How about simply “common use”.

But Heller gives us this language

The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense.

So the "for" is a condition of the use - that use must be lawful.
The "like" is giving an example of self-defense being part of the variety of purposes known to be lawful.

 

[pastera]

That's not something you want to bring up. Since the intent of the 2A was very clear, especially if you read Federalist 19 (?About 90% sure on the number) . It protected weapons of war. Not weapons used for recreation or hunting.

At the time of the founding, small arms were used interchangeably for war and peace.
A militiaman would very likely put food on the table during the week with the same rifle/musket he drilled with.

Miller and Heller contradict here where Miller excludes sawed off shotguns because they were not seen as military arms whereas Heller assumes M16s to be outside the protection because they are military arms.

 

[center442]

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.

They will try to overturn it, but they'll have a high bar to clear.

The Roe decision was a stretch, and it wasn't an enumerated right. Overturning a decision that involves an enumerated right (backed by previous SCOTUS decisions favoring it) shouldn't be easy.

In my mind, it would be akin to the court overturning the first or fifth Amendment.

I just hope that SCOTUS moves quickly.

ETA: Picton's post eloquently says what I was trying to. Bravo!

 

[dcmdon]

how can something be in common use if it's banned?

Simple. A legislature passes the bill and then the Governor signs it.

If you want to kill it, you have to beat it in the courts which takes time and money.

They can pass any law they want. Until its defeated in the courts, it's the law.

 

[LakeTrout]

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

Guns in the hands of civilians had nothing to do with Japan not taking Hawaii despite whatever obnoxious memes and misinformation you hear on the internet or at the gun store.

 

[StevieP]

Harris is the new AR-15 salesperson of the year 2024?

moa lowas!

 

[pdm]

Harris is the new AR-15 salesperson of the year 2024?

moa lowas!

 

[CatSnoutSoup]

And here we go …

SAF PETITIONS SUPREME COURT FOR CERTIORARI IN MARYLAND RIFLE BAN - Second Amendment Foundation

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in its continuing challenge of a ban on modern semiautomatic rifles in the state of Maryland, arguing that high court review is necessary to ensure the Second Amendment is “not...

saf.org

PDF of the actual petition.

https://saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Bianchi-Petition.pdf

 

[Joeldiaz]

And here we go …

SAF PETITIONS SUPREME COURT FOR CERTIORARI IN MARYLAND RIFLE BAN - Second Amendment Foundation

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in its continuing challenge of a ban on modern semiautomatic rifles in the state of Maryland, arguing that high court review is necessary to ensure the Second Amendment is “not...

saf.org

PDF of the actual petition.

https://saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Bianchi-Petition.pdf

So the new name of the case is Snope v. Brown? What happened to Bianchi I wonder?

 

[M1911]

By the 94 AWB Reagan was simply not Reagan.
He never was a strong 2a proponent but to link him to the 94 ban is rewriting the history of his unfortunate decline.

Reagan wasn’t president in 1994. He was president from 1981 - 1989. The assault weapons ban of 1994 was passed during the Clinton presidency.

 

[pastera]

Reagan wasn’t president in 1994. He was president from 1981 - 1989. The assault weapons ban of 1994 was passed during the Clinton presidency.

Agree - did you read the post I quoted in that response?
That post referenced Reagan's response to the 94 ban.
But we all know that his mind had long before wasted away to a horrible disease. The man that made comments supporting the ban was not the same man well loved by his beloved country.

 

[CatSnoutSoup]

So the new name of the case is Snope v. Brown? What happened to Bianchi I wonder?

Per the petition...

Petitioners David Snope, Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., Second Amendment Foundation, and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms were the plaintiffs before the District Court and the plaintiffs-appellants in the Court of Appeals. Petitioners were joined by Dominic Bianchi, Micah Schaefer, and Field Traders LLC as plaintiffs in the district court and plaintiff-appellants in the Fourth Circuit. Bianchi and Schaefer no longer reside in Maryland and Field Traders LLC no longer does business there.

 

[CatSnoutSoup]

Bianchi would have had a nicer ring to it for the history books, no offense to Mr. Snope.