If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/Pioneer Valley Arms April Giveaway ***Smith & Wesson SD9VE 9MM***

Reply to thread

Message

In a nutshell, yes.
The 4th panel was ready to deliver an opinion striking down the Maryland ban based on Bruen. However, the dissent (and larger court) refused to file the dissent and then took the case en banc (full court) without releasing the panel opinion. It was in the en banc where the court basically said they know what SCOTUS said in Bruen but reject being held to SCOTUS' binding holdings and the Constitution. Rumor has it that the dissent in the en banc opinion was essentially the original panel opinion.
Given the very political manner in how the 4th handled the case and its disregard for binding precedent, I don't see how SCOTUS doesn't take this case.

[QUOTE="pastera, post: 9357025, member: 28768"] In a nutshell, yes. The 4th panel was ready to deliver an opinion striking down the Maryland ban based on Bruen. However, the dissent (and larger court) refused to file the dissent and then took the case en banc (full court) without releasing the panel opinion. It was in the en banc where the court basically said they know what SCOTUS said in Bruen but reject being held to SCOTUS' binding holdings and the Constitution. Rumor has it that the dissent in the en banc opinion was essentially the original panel opinion. Given the very political manner in how the 4th handled the case and its disregard for binding precedent, I don't see how SCOTUS doesn't take this case. [/QUOTE]

Verification