Supreme Court remits MD assault weapons ban back to lower courts in light of Bruen vs. NY ruling

[BurkeM]

I think, technically, it will depend on how positively incensed SCOTUS is by the 4th circuit literally telling SCOTUS to GFY.

SCOTUS is not a hive mind- the decision is made by majority opinion. AT the moment, the odds are in our favor- if there is a very compelling Petition.

 

[Rabu Rabu]

Impressed they didn't screw around and just put a decision out. To the steps we go.

 

[Bob A]

Going off on Footnote 2.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nice job by our favorite long winded lawyer.

 

[Bertfish]

SCOTUS is not a hive mind- the decision is made by majority opinion. AT the moment, the odds are in our favor- if there is a very compelling Petition.

Compelling doesn't seem to be enough

 

[dblas]

Since the original case was GVR’d at the SCOTUS, does that mean this appeal has to be accepted for argument, or can the SCOTUS decide not to hear the case?

They can still decide not to take the case. My guess is that 50/50 that they will take it.

 

[Bertfish]

They can still decide not to take the case. My guess is that 50/50 that they will take it.

You're more optimistic than I am

 

[rbird7282]

Fvck the 4CA, these people are nothing more than robe wearing tyrants


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bob A]

Fvck the 4CA, these people are nothing more than robe wearing tyrants


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

See, they know what's good for you, and they're making it mandatory.

 

[Saberwalk]

Trying to understand the implication of this decision pending SCOTUS review. Doesn’t the ban exclude “Sporter” HBAR AR-15s?

 

[wpage]

Best move for a change in November to get things moving in the Right direction.

Progressive left wing nuts, using lawfare to destroy the intent of the Constitution.

 

[teratos]

Trying to understand the implication of this decision pending SCOTUS review. Doesn’t the ban exclude “Sporter” HBAR AR-15s?

This is a strong argument.

4CA also mentioned self-defense as the singular core of the 2A. It is not.

 

[Inigoes]

This is a strong argument.

4CA also mentioned self-defense as the singular core of the 2A. It is not.

But, its for the greater good!

[/sarcasm]

 

[lazarus]

They can still decide not to take the case. My guess is that 50/50 that they will take it.

IMHO, if they don't take this one, then they are taking one of the other AWB cases. I think this one is ripe considering they pretty much opined they don't give a FF about the Bruen decision and is a final decision.

That said, I don't necessarily expect it to go our way. Or at least all our way. I do expect some majority SCOTUS slap down. SCOTUS often doesn't really care about carefully defining frameworks for courts to interpret laws, but I think they are going to finally (FINALLY!) put something into a place that courts (and legislatures) can actually lean on when considering bans.

But I do think SCOTUS is going to leave in place the ability to ban things. Or at least heavily regulate them.

I'd like to think I am wrong, but lately Thomas and Alito have not been playing well with other justices and it has lost the majority on some cases as a result because they wanted an "extreme" opinion and most of the other conservative justices weren't willing to go along with that. And I can see this being one where they take it, but then Thomas and Alito push for an opinion the other conservative justices aren't willing to support.

 

[motorcoachdoug]

according to our favorite lawyer the female judge on the appeals panel did not write a decent but sat on it for over a year until another 2a case came along that was totally different then 2 judges who were going to say MD law was unconstitutional and wonder if their is anyway a complaint can be filled against her and also contact a rep over on the house side of congress for impeachment.

 

[Boxcab]

Nice job by our favorite long winded lawyer.

Yeah, and he made a point about how it was His postings that made the 4th's judges make the rush to judgement.



.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

 

[clandestine]

Mark Smith has been right about everything he has opined on regarding this case.

 

[Apd09]

Yeah, and he made a point about how it was His postings that made the 4th's judges make the rush to judgement.



.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

I don’t recall him saying anything like that. He did say that he had ideas what was going on and he was right, which he was. And he made a video about it and then the en Banc hijacked the case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dblas]

You're more optimistic than I am

So, they held it over several conferences and then held it pending Bruen. After they ruled on Bruen they Granted Cert. They vacated the previous ruling, based on the new ruling in Bruen (this is somewhat important). They remanded the case back down to rehear the case with the new gguidance.

Now, since the 4th Circus came up with the same ruling (basically Kolbe repackaged), the same basic ruling that was vacated two years ago, I'm betting that SCOTUS will take the case and tell the 4th Circus they got it wrong (again) and make a national level decision. And if SCOTUS does, the other states don't have any partner states to blame, just the arrogant justices on the 4th Circus that think they know better.

Just my amateur thoughts on the process.

 

[dblas]

Trying to understand the implication of this decision pending SCOTUS review. Doesn’t the ban exclude “Sporter” HBAR AR-15s?

Yes, and their copies. Why?

 

[dblas]

IMHO, if they don't take this one, then they are taking one of the other AWB cases. I think this one is ripe considering they pretty much opined they don't give a FF about the Bruen decision and is a final decision.

On this we agree, I also thing SCOTUS will take it because they GVR'd the previous ruling which was based on Kolbe, and this ruling is Kolbe repackaged with some"we don't care about Bruen" thrown in for good measure.

That said, I don't necessarily expect it to go our way. Or at least all our way. I do expect some majority SCOTUS slap down. SCOTUS often doesn't really care about carefully defining frameworks for courts to interpret laws, but I think they are going to finally (FINALLY!) put something into a place that courts (and legislatures) can actually lean on when considering bans.

I'm 50/50 on this (49/51) not in our favor)

But I do think SCOTUS is going to leave in place the ability to ban things. Or at least heavily regulate them.

I'm not sure about this, if they do, they will have to really define the where, how, and why.

I'd like to think I am wrong, but lately Thomas and Alito have not been playing well with other justices and it has lost the majority on some cases as a result because they wanted an "extreme" opinion and most of the other conservative justices weren't willing to go along with that. And I can see this being one where they take it, but then Thomas and Alito push for an opinion the other conservative justices aren't willing to support.

The three branches at all levels have been going to the further ends of the spectrum. At some point it would be nice if they came back to some resemblance of center-left/center-right and work across the aisle/bench/table.