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

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!
  • teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    52,959
    Bel Air
    No, you're not. The law is being challenged and it just so happens that the AWB is a large portion of the law. If...when the law is struck down, it will be struck down in its entirety.
    Yes, I am. Bianchi only mentions “assault weapons”. That’s all they are going to rule on. Read the case. This isn’t challenging mag capacity at all.
     

    Allen65

    Active Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 29, 2013
    5,700
    Anne Arundel County
    Yes, I am. Bianchi only mentions “assault weapons”. That’s all they are going to rule on. Read the case. This isn’t challenging mag capacity at all.
    Post-Bruen, SCOTUS also GVR'ed ANJPC v. Buck and Duncan v. Bonta. Both are magazine ban cases. Once those are settled, any case against MD's law should go quickly, assuming MD doesn't fold on enforcement as soon as those cases are decided. So while Bianchi doesn't ask for relief from the mag portion of FSA2013, we might get it in the same timeframe anyway depending on the timelines for the NJ and CA cases.
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    52,959
    Bel Air
    Post-Bruen, SCOTUS also GVR'ed ANJPC v. Buck and Duncan v. Bonta. Both are magazine ban cases. Once those are settled, any case against MD's law should go quickly, assuming MD doesn't fold on enforcement as soon as those cases are decided. So while Bianchi doesn't ask for relief from the mag portion of FSA2013, we might get it in the same timeframe anyway depending on the timelines for the NJ and CA cases.
    I know about those, sorry you had to type so much. ;) I’m strictly talking Bianchi. Their House of Cards is in for very strong winds. It’s fun watching.
     

    hodgepodge

    Senior Member (Gold)
    Sep 3, 2009
    9,751
    Arnold, MD
    You had me at "Although ordinarily the appropriate course after reversing the district court’s order dismissing Plaintiffs’ suit would be to remand this case for further proceedings, that is neither necessary nor appropriate in this case."
     

    jcutonilli

    Active Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,257
    Doesn't it seem like it's past time for the lower courts to respond to SCOTUS sending cases back?
    I am not aware of any court that has not moved forward with the GVR'd cases.

    Young v HI has been remanded to the district court
    Duncan v Bonta has a briefing schedule with the briefs due in a couple of days.
    ANJRPC v Bruck has both sides letter briefs filed (10 August)
    This case has a briefing schedule with the opening brief already filed.
     

    jcutonilli

    Active Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,257
    No, you're not. The law is being challenged and it just so happens that the AWB is a large portion of the law. If...when the law is struck down, it will be struck down in its entirety.
    What is being challenge is documented in the complaint that is initially filed

    In the complaint they talk about all of the sections of the Criminal Law Article Title 4 Subtitle 3 except section 305. Subtitle 3 addresses "assault weapons", detachable magazines and "rapid fire trigger activators". Section 305 addresses detachable magazines and "rapid fire trigger activators". This means they are challenging the AWB, but not the mag or trigger portion of the law. The court will decide the case based on what has been challenged. The will not address the mag and trigger activator section because it has not been challenged.

     

    rambling_one

    Active Member
    MDS Supporter
    Oct 19, 2007
    6,287
    Bowie, MD
    I am not aware of any court that has not moved forward with the GVR'd cases.

    Young v HI has been remanded to the district court
    Duncan v Bonta has a briefing schedule with the briefs due in a couple of days.
    ANJRPC v Bruck has both sides letter briefs filed (10 August)
    This case has a briefing schedule with the opening brief already filed.
    "Respond" was a poor choice of words. I was referring to actual decisions. I know, patience is a virtue.
     

    jcutonilli

    Active Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,257
    Apparently Frosh applied for a 30 day extension, on Thursday, for their brief and was granted a 30 day extension until 12 Oct.
     

    swinokur

    In a State of Bliss
    Patriot Picket
    Apr 15, 2009
    53,799
    Not in Montgomery any longer
    Release the Bruen!
     

    Attachments

    • E2095212-5531-408C-8F0A-AD1D546D79A8.jpeg
      E2095212-5531-408C-8F0A-AD1D546D79A8.jpeg
      103.4 KB · Views: 35
    Last edited:

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    52,959
    Bel Air
    Frosh for asking, knowing he's only delaying the inevitable, or the judge for granting, knowing Frosh was only doing it to delay the inevitable?
    Both.
    Frosh has earned my undying disrespect and scorn.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    264,913
    Messages
    6,818,806
    Members
    31,264
    Latest member
    737ck

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom