RICHMOND, Va. (CN) — For the second time, a Fourth Circuit panel on Tuesday heard arguments in a legal battle between gun owners and Maryland over the constitutionality of the state’s semiautomatic weapons ban.

Gun owners and gun rights organizations, including Firearms Policy Coalition and the Second Amendment Foundation, brought the lawsuit against the state two years ago. The complaint was dismissed last year by a federal judge who said he was bound by prior Fourth Circuit precedent.

On appeal, the plaintiffs argue that after the U.S. Supreme Court’s June ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, Maryland’s ban on semiautomatic weapons like the AR-15 is no longer constitutional.

“Bruen clarifies how the Court’s Second Amendment test applies specifically to laws like Maryland’s barring the possession of certain types of firearms," the gun rights supporters' brief to the Fourth Circuit states. “With respect to the Second Amendment’s text, the Court reiterated that ‘the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.’"

featureless wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 10:46 pm Circuit Court of Appeals aren't bound by another district's opinions. They carry weight when cited, but aren't precedent. In fact, a circuit split where two districts have ruled opposite of each other will increase the likelihood of SCOTUS hearing an appeal.

What is lacking from the quote above is that this case was GVRd by SCOTUS over the summer. Essentially saying the 4th got it wrong. Do over. I listened to the oral argument. Two of the three judges seem inclined to accept the standard of "8n common use for lawful purposes." The third very much wants to ban scary rifles no matter the law. I am hopeful based on the orals.

Here's a link to the oral arguments if anyone is interested: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/ ... 221206.mp3

featureless wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 8:03 am Marginal!

sikacz wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 10:18 am

featureless wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 8:03 am Marginal!

Yes, I should be realistic with my expectations.

highdesert wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 10:50 am In this case Bianchi v Frosh, I agree it's interesting that after SCOTUS granted cert, vacated the 4th Circuit's decision and remanded it back to the 4th circuit, a panel of the 4th heard a new appeal. Cases post Bruen that SCOTUS GVRd from the 9th Circuit were sent back by the 9th to the district courts for rehearing based on Bruen. Seems like some disparity there depending on circuit. Maybe it's just that the 9th Circuit is very anti-firearms.

featureless wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:06 am

highdesert wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 10:50 am In this case Bianchi v Frosh, I agree it's interesting that after SCOTUS granted cert, vacated the 4th Circuit's decision and remanded it back to the 4th circuit, a panel of the 4th heard a new appeal. Cases post Bruen that SCOTUS GVRd from the 9th Circuit were sent back by the 9th to the district courts for rehearing based on Bruen. Seems like some disparity there depending on circuit. Maybe it's just that the 9th Circuit is very anti-firearms.

Yes, very anti-firearm. CA9 will do everything it can to stall having to make a ruling or allowing these cases to run up to SCOTUS.

DispositionMatrix wrote: Tue Jan 16, 2024 1:36 pm Minor update in Bianchi v. Brown, formerly Bianchi v. Frosh as the case drags on for as long as possible.
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firear ... 1705099281

sig230 wrote: Wed Jan 17, 2024 10:04 am I wish that were at least somewhat true but all the evidence says that they are still the Courts and the decisions they hand down are still operable and legitimate even when inconsistent, arbitrary, or even mutually exclusive.

CDFingers wrote: Wed Jan 17, 2024 10:48 am

sig230 wrote: Wed Jan 17, 2024 10:04 am I wish that were at least somewhat true but all the evidence says that they are still the Courts and the decisions they hand down are still operable and legitimate even when inconsistent, arbitrary, or even mutually exclusive.

If they are inconsistent with respect to their interpretations of Amendments, I consider them to be illegitimate. In no State is a complete ban on the RKBA. Not so with abortion. In those States where abortion is banned, women are relegated to second class citizen status, like slaves. To accept such inconsistency is to fail to understand how the Constitution works. We must apply things equally or we have a fake set of Courts.

CDFingers

sikacz wrote: Wed Jan 17, 2024 12:10 pm I agree that a person’s autonomy shouldn’t be subverted by the state, but when democracy and elected means fail then there is only one means to resist and remedy the issue. The last resort is the second amendment and it is because of this that it should be a primary concern that it needs to be protected. It is ultimately the last way to protect any personal autonomy including abortion.

CDFingers wrote: Wed Jan 17, 2024 4:55 pm So, some rights are more equal than others? It should not be that way.

What if it were men whose bodies were owned by the State where we are required to get a vasectomy at puberty, which is reversible, and have it reversed when we wanted to reproduce? But we could still have guns.

Having fun yet?

CDFingers

featureless wrote: Wed Jan 17, 2024 5:40 pm

CDFingers wrote: Wed Jan 17, 2024 4:55 pm So, some rights are more equal than others? It should not be that way.

What if it were men whose bodies were owned by the State where we are required to get a vasectomy at puberty, which is reversible, and have it reversed when we wanted to reproduce? But we could still have guns.

Having fun yet?

CDFingers

I agree, it should not be that way. But I do not accept the perspective that because some rights have been eroded there is justification for degradation of other rights.

I agree a woman's bodily autonomy should be an absolute right. That it is not so in many states does not mean 2A rights should also be fair game. Rather, a certain party should be working full throttle to secure a woman's right instead of eroding gun rights. Two wrongs really don't make a right, especially in this case.

With regard to abortion, it is, unfortunately, not specifically called out in the Constitution and trying it to privacy was tenuous at best. That does not mean I do not support that right, only that it is not as blatantly obvious to constitutional sticklers. The Dems need to get to work on it. The courts and the repugs sure as shit aren't.