4th Circuit Court of Appeals Decision seems destined to reach the Supreme Court

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • sako204

    Member
    Nov 7, 2012
    39
    http://crimeresearch.org/2016/02/4t...ct-seems-destined-to-reach-the-supreme-court/

    A new ruling in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals conflicts the rulings in other Circuit Courts and seems likely to force the Supreme Court to address this issue.

    . . . In a 2-1 decision applauded by gun rights advocates, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit concluded that the semiautomatic weapons and high-capacity magazines banned by Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act “are in common use by law-abiding citizens.” As a result, they don’t fall under the exception to the right to bear arms that applies to “unusual” weapons such as machine guns and hand grenades, the court said.

    Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh said Thursday that the decision “conflicts sharply with rulings of other federal appellate courts.” Frosh said he would appeal — either to the full 15-member 4th Circuit or to the U.S. Supreme Court. . . .

    Given the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller, the use of a standard above strict scrutiny in striking down the DC handgun ban it seems appropriate for this decision was also based on strict scrutiny.
     

    MDFF2008

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 12, 2008
    24,735
    It certainly is a good case. It gives the SCOTUS the opportunity to address the standard of review for 2A claims, while not actually striking any laws.
     

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    I am going to go out on a limb and say, en banc denied and SCT review denied at this stage**. The 4th circuit only remanded it for further review. 4th circuit precedent virtually required strict scrutiny for in the home self defense already, so all they did here did was follow their own precedent. The appeals court has the option of another bite at review once the new trial happens. It is not a foregone conclusion the law will be struck under strict scrutiny either. I think Frosh and the MD legislature is really jammed up with this decision. Without much hope of appeal, they will have to go back and actually prove their case. We might see a panic attempt to moot this case via a partial repeal.

    btw, Heller did not apply "a standard above strict scrutiny in striking down the DC handgun ban" it only said that a ban would fail any form of heightened scrutiny, which is actually a lesser test.

    ** actually I do not think Frosh would even appeal it. I doubt he would want to be the one that killed "assault weapons" bans forever.
     

    redsandman6

    Active Member
    Dec 22, 2011
    777
    Dundalk
    ok i want to play what if

    what if frosh loses in the new trial under SS. what is his appeal to the 4th circuit court of appeals? does he ask the 4th for a stay until the appeal process goes on?

    I think his only play is fighting strict scrutiny in the 4th or SCOTUS. because once he loses in the re-trial I don't think he has a leg to stand on in the appeal process
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,354
    SoMD / West PA
    If Frosh has any chance to prevail, he must nip the strict scrutiny in the bud. All of Maryland argument relies on rational basis, and "for the children".

    His only chance will be the SCOTUS, it will be doubtful the 4CA will go against their mountain of precendent
     

    fightinbluhen51

    "Quack Pot Call Honker"
    Oct 31, 2008
    8,974
    If Frosh has any chance to prevail, he must nip the strict scrutiny in the bud.

    His only chance will be the SCOTUS, it will be doubtful the 4CA will go against their mountain of precendant

    Did Chester go en banc a few years ago?

    1) I don't have Pacer
    2) My memory isn't that good (but I think the answer is no).
    3) No one has answered that question for me in the post Kolbe decision world.

    HELP!

    And I concur with your assessment.
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,354
    SoMD / West PA
    Did Chester go en banc a few years ago?

    1) I don't have Pacer
    2) My memory isn't that good (but I think the answer is no).
    3) No one has answered that question for me in the post Kolbe decision world.

    HELP!

    And I concur with your assessment.

    I do not believe Chester was accepted for an En Banc review.

    Chester did make it to the 4CA, and was rejected en banc, and not granted cert before the SCOTUS.

    NOTE: Woollard was a win in District (Thank you Judge Legg), reversed at the 4CA, rejected en banc, and not granted cert before the SCOTUS.
     

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    Did Chester go en banc a few years ago?

    1) I don't have Pacer
    2) My memory isn't that good (but I think the answer is no).
    3) No one has answered that question for me in the post Kolbe decision world.

    HELP!

    And I concur with your assessment.

    En Banc requested and denied in Chester.

    2/30/2010 46 JUDGMENT ORDER filed. Disposition method: 09-4084 opn.p.arg. Decision: Vacated and remanded. Originating case number: 2:08-cr-00105-1. Entered on Docket Date: 12/30/2010. [998493800] Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [09-4084] (RW)
    01/04/2011 47 MOTION filed by Appellee US to extend filing time for petition for rehearing. Date and method of service: 01/04/2011 ecf [998495825] [09-4084] Elizabeth Collery
    01/05/2011 48 COURT ORDER filed [998497116] granting Motion to extend filing time [47] Copies to all parties. Copies to all parties. [09-4084] (RW)
    02/14/2011 49 PETITION for rehearing en banc (FRAP 35) filed by Appellee US. [09-4084] Elizabeth Collery
    02/15/2011 50 Mandate stayed by FRAP 41(d)(1). [09-4084] (RW)
    02/28/2011 51 COURT ORDER filed [998533264] denying Motion for rehearing en banc [49] Copies to all parties. [09-4084] (RW)
    03/08/2011 52 Mandate issued. Referencing: [45],Published Authored Opinion , [46],Judgment order. Originating case number: 2:08-cr-00105-1 [09-4084] (RW)
     

    RoboRay

    Active Member
    Oct 16, 2013
    379
    Really. As 4CA has already established precedent for Strict Scrutiny of 2A "in the home", and any gun ban by definition impacts "in the home", why would they accept this one En Banc to question their own precedent? Courts don't generally overrule themselves.
     

    clandestine

    AR-15 Savant
    Oct 13, 2008
    37,031
    Elkton, MD
    This would be good for SCOTUS to hear ASAP because if Shillary wins, she IS going after the guns MD banned, but on a Federal Level.
     

    fred333

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Dec 20, 2013
    12,340
    This would be good for SCOTUS to hear ASAP because if Shillary wins, she IS going after the guns MD banned, but on a Federal Level.

    She'd likely seek prohibitions on more than just that.
    "Australia is a good example, Canada is a good example, the U.K. is a good example. Why? Because each of them have had mass killings. Australia had a huge mass killing about 20, 25 years ago, Canada did as well, so did the U.K. And, in reaction, they passed much stricter gun laws." —Hillary Clinton
     

    ShafTed

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 21, 2013
    2,212
    Juuuuust over the line
    An interesting random thought just fell into my feeble little brain. The Firearms Act of 2013 (which has nothing to do with safety) BANNED the scary looking rifles and limited magazines to 10 rounds, by modifying previous law. If the ban & 10 are overturned on strict scrutiny, it is my understanding that the law reverts back to the way it was before 2013. Can REGULATION of the scary rifles and the 20 round mag limit then be challenged so as to be subjected to strict scrutiny? How many hemorrhoids would that cause for the steaming pile of Frosh?:D
     

    gungate

    NRA Patron Member
    Apr 5, 2012
    16,725
    Damascus. MD
    An interesting random thought just fell into my feeble little brain. The Firearms Act of 2013 (which has nothing to do with safety) BANNED the scary looking rifles and limited magazines to 10 rounds, by modifying previous law. If the ban & 10 are overturned on strict scrutiny, it is my understanding that the law reverts back to the way it was before 2013. Can REGULATION of the scary rifles and the 20 round mag limit then be challenged so as to be subjected to strict scrutiny? How many hemorrhoids would that cause for the steaming pile of Frosh?:D

    ROFL - Yeah end up worse than he started.

    FYI: There is some scuttlebutt that if Hillary is elected, she will appoint ObarfBag to the SC at the first chance she gets.
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,775
    Bel Air
    I am going to go out on a limb and say, en banc denied and SCT review denied at this stage**. The 4th circuit only remanded it for further review. 4th circuit precedent virtually required strict scrutiny for in the home self defense already, so all they did here did was follow their own precedent. The appeals court has the option of another bite at review once the new trial happens. It is not a foregone conclusion the law will be struck under strict scrutiny either. I think Frosh and the MD legislature is really jammed up with this decision. Without much hope of appeal, they will have to go back and actually prove their case. We might see a panic attempt to moot this case via a partial repeal.

    btw, Heller did not apply "a standard above strict scrutiny in striking down the DC handgun ban" it only said that a ban would fail any form of heightened scrutiny, which is actually a lesser test.

    ** actually I do not think Frosh would even appeal it. I doubt he would want to be the one that killed "assault weapons" bans forever.

    The judge did not leave a lot of options open for the State in his decision. He basically went into the reasons why an AWB would fail to stand-up to strict scrutiny. Then he told them to apply strict scrutiny. He said they are in common use, are used for home defense, and have legitimate sporting purposes. It's pretty hard to find a reason to ban them. Oh, BTW, they aren't used in crime regularly, either.
     

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    An interesting random thought just fell into my feeble little brain. The Firearms Act of 2013 (which has nothing to do with safety) BANNED the scary looking rifles and limited magazines to 10 rounds, by modifying previous law. If the ban & 10 are overturned on strict scrutiny, it is my understanding that the law reverts back to the way it was before 2013. Can REGULATION of the scary rifles and the 20 round mag limit then be challenged so as to be subjected to strict scrutiny? How many hemorrhoids would that cause for the steaming pile of Frosh?:D

    Yeah, they should sue Frosh and Gansler for malpractice. The motto "never interrupt your enemy while they make a mistake" comes to mind.

    They were a lot more concerned with giving O'Taxy a reach around to help his now failed presidential bid than the long term consequences of their ineptitude.
     

    MDFF2008

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 12, 2008
    24,735
    Yeah, they should sue Frosh and Gansler for malpractice. The motto "never interrupt your enemy while they make a mistake" comes to mind.

    They were a lot more concerned with giving O'Taxy a reach around to help his now failed presidential bid than the long term consequences of their ineptitude.

    You could challenge it, but I think the government could show under the burden of strict scrutiny that requiring a background check on sporting rifles is valid.

    The 20 round magazine limit might be an interesting case though; but, looking at the language of the decision, they talk about standard capacity mags being 17 rounds. I think 20 is harder to take down than 10.
     

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    7 day background check would be ok, but similar to the CA case (Silvester v Harris) where an already lawful gun owner shouldn't have to go through the hoops a 2nd time. Silvester Oral Args are tomorrow btw which will address subsequent background waits...

    Heavy barrel requirement seems like an easy one as well under Strict after Kolbe is settled which would open up AR's/AK's if successful.
     

    Blacksmith101

    Grumpy Old Man
    Jun 22, 2012
    22,154
    Under a SS judicial mandate a lot of existing and long standing gun control laws will fall. Once the ball gets rolling the lower courts will start applying SS to any cases brought before them and most will not stand up to "compelling reason" and "narrowest restrictions".

    Remember there is another case in a different circuit that also addresses SS that is Tyler v Hillsdale County.
     

    ar154u

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Dec 23, 2015
    271
    I think the case will be heard at the district court again with strict scrutiny applied and Frosh wins. We appeal to the 4th circuit again and it is upheld. We apply for cert at SC and they refuse to hear the case. It's the total screwing and I see it coming.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,915
    Messages
    7,258,438
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom