If i remember right we expected this to happen and want to take this before 4ca and might end up En Banc as well.
I think they'll just appeal with SCOTUS. We may have a LOT of cases on hold for NYSRPA. What's one more?
Thx. On ward to SCOTUS now.....UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2377 BRIAN KIRK MALPASSO; MARYLAND STATE RIFLE AND PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. WILLIAM M. PALLOZZI, in his official capacity as Maryland Secretary of State Police, Defendant - Appellee. ------------------------------------------ GIFFORDS LAW CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE; BRADY CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE; MARYLAND CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION; EVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY, Amici Supporting Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. (1:18-cv-01064-ELH) Submitted: April 25, 2019 Decided: April 29, 2019 Before FLOYD and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, Nicole J. Moss, John D. Ohlendorf, COOPER & KIRK, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General, Mark H. Bowen, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Pikesville, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Brian Kirk Malpasso and Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc., appeal the district court’s dismissal of their complaint alleging that § 5-306(a)(5)(ii) of the Maryland Code of Public Safety is an unconstitutional burden on the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms. Malpasso and the Association seek a declaratory judgment declaring that § 5-306(a)(6)(ii) is unconstitutional and an injunction precluding future enforcement of the statute and requiring the State to issue handgun carry licenses to Malpasso and the Association’s members. The district court granted the State’s motion to dismiss the complaint after Malpasso and the Association conceded that our ruling in Woollard v. Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865 (4th Cir. 2013), controlled.* On appeal, Malpasso and the Association acknowledge that this panel cannot overturn Woollard. “A decision of a panel of this court becomes the law of the circuit and is binding on other panels unless overruled by a subsequent en banc opinion of this court or a superseding contrary decision of the Supreme Court.” United States v. Collins, 415 F.3d 304, 311 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). Therefore, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of the complaint. We dispense with oral argument *In Woollard, we held that assuming, without deciding, that § 5-306(a)(6)(ii)’s “good-and-substantial-reason” requirement implicated Second Amendment protections, the provision did not unconstitutionally infringe upon the rights granted by the Second Amendment, as applied to the statute’s challenger. 712 F.3d at 882.
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
This is what it says, does this mean it was dismissed in the 4ca as well and is going to the scotus?
And if you could do this in layman's terms and not terms in latin, that would be great
It also says that unpublished opinions are not binding precedent this circuit.
Thought they had to go thru 4ca first before they file a cert with SCOTUS?
Thought they had to go thru 4ca first before they file a cert with SCOTUS?
They just did. The only question was whether they want to petition the entire 4th circuit to hear en banc.
That's a waste of time IMO.
For us non-lawyers out here, is there a summary of what this case says, who the involved parties are, what's happened with it so far and what the time frame is for whatever next steps follow?
I think I have a decent idea, except for the "what happens next and when" part, but it's legalese. I don't speak legalese, I just try to decipher it...
It looks like the objective of this case is just to remove the G&S clause from the rules covering WCP issuance, very specifically. Have I got that much right?
History of which court did what and when, that I dunno. Hoping someone will post updates here periodically.
Thanks!
So we are playing the waiting game to see what SCOTUS will do ..