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

[jkeys]

https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2022-06-30/supreme-court-says-several-gun-cases-deserve-a-new-look?context=amp

They are also stating that California and NJ mag bans need to be reheard.

My wallet won't survive the aftermath!

 

[teratos]

Oh, then I’ll have a lot of guns be naturalized. (I kid, I kid).

 

[Mike OTDP]

Is there a chance of getting an injunction that would let us buy in the interim?

 

[teratos]

Is there a chance of getting an injunction that would let us buy in the interim?

Doubt it.

 

[whistlersmother]

I would hope is the first hearing after the GVR is the last.

 

[TI-tick]

Lord have mercy...

Strike down the roster...
Strike down the AW BS....
Strike down the mag capacity limits....

Can I get a Halleluiah??

Can you see the light???

PS: ESAD Newscum

 

[Jimgoespewpew]

https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2022-06-30/supreme-court-says-several-gun-cases-deserve-a-new-look?context=amp

They are also stating that California and NJ mag bans need to be reheard.

My wallet won't survive the aftermath!

How about the new Washington ban

 

[jcutonilli]

Is there a chance of getting an injunction that would let us buy in the interim?

There are four criteria that are evaluated.
Likelihood of success, Irreparable harm, Balance of Equities, Public Interest

You simply need to make a case demonstrating how you meet all four criteria. In the past, the Courts tended to side with the government on the likelihood of success so most injunctions were denied. It is unclear how the government will defend the law so it is difficult to predict the exact chance, but it does seem likely that the likelihood of success will go our way. The other three criteria are not as difficult to prove given it addresses fundamental rights.

I do expect that the government will be given plenty of time to figure out how they will respond before any injunction would be issued.

 

[INMY01TA]

Any chance of ghost gun bans going down?

 

[teratos]

Any chance of ghost gun bans going down?

I think that would have to be a separate lawsuit. There is a big 80% industry. I’d not be surprised to see it.

 

[lazarus]

How about the new Washington ban

New lawsuit. The 9th cover WA and CA if I remember right. If 9th strikes down CA’s ban, a lawsuit should be really fast striking down WA’s unless WA can make some really novel arguments as the 9ths decision would be binding on all decisions within the circuit.

It’s one downside to the cases being GVR’d rather than SCOTUS hearing them.

States in other circuits can try their luck and the precedent in other circuits isn’t binding. I would still think in light of Thomas opinion circuits aren’t likely to uphold these laws. And if 3rd and 9th strike down mag bans and 4th does with MD’s AWB a good chance other circuits are probably going to look at the decisions of other circuits and take their cue. They don’t HAVE to though. So basically states in every circuit can play F around and find out until their circuit strikes down AWB and mag bans. At THAT point, a state could still try, but the district court is almost certainly going to slap an injunction and the state will likely lose quickly and not bother appealing (unless they are super stupid).

SCOTUS is likely to have to weigh in on these cases at some point because some circuit is likely to not get the clear message and there will be a circuit split. It’s also possible that a state might lose at the appeals court level and decide to appeal to SCOTUS and SCOTUS may decide to take up the case just to make a clear message that the state is wrong. There doesn’t have to be a circuit split or overturning or the appeals court to take the case.

 

[Allen65]

SCOTUS is likely to have to weigh in on these cases at some point because some circuit is likely to not get the clear message and there will be a circuit split.

Are we starting a pool on which appellate district doesn't go with the flow? 9th may be a bunch of moonbats, but I think 2nd will win the return trip to SCOTUS purely out of arrogance. "Dammit, what part of 'we're NY' don't you understand, Clarence?"

 

[lazarus]

Are we starting a pool on which appellate district doesn't go with the flow? 9th may be a bunch of moonbats, but I think 2nd will win the return trip to SCOTUS purely out of arrogance. "Dammit, what part of 'we're NY' don't you understand, Clarence?"

Unknown. 9th was en banc after the appeals court ruled against the state, right? If I am remember right the en banc was something like 7 to 4? Just takes two more judges having gotten the real clear fricken message from SCOTUS to overturn the law.

I am curious if they’ll ask to amend the lawsuit in light of the Bruen decision and also ask for the brass ring striking down CA’s entire AWB. Though If I remember right, theirs is a separate law from the AWB. Unlike MD’s 2013 FSA

 

[jcutonilli]

Any chance of ghost gun bans going down?

It is still too early to be sure, but the federal requirements seem like an overreach of authority. The state requirements may be more difficult to challenge. I have this feeling that the lower courts will see the state requirements as typical regulations that can be upheld.

 

[HUMONGO]

I'd love to be able to get an FN-FAL!

 

[moto.x]

They did not outright throw out the lower court ruling, they only sent it back for "reconsideration". What does this mean in realistic terms? Are they simply giving the lower courts a path to retract their ruling without forcing a ruling on them?

Additionally as I've read some posts here, these courts would not just willingly reverse these earlier decisions. It requires someone to challenge the ruling in court to get this AWB ban reversed, is that correct?

REALLY hoping to get myself an ar180 one of these days...

 

[Allen65]

They did not outright throw out the lower court ruling, they only sent it back for "reconsideration". What does this mean in realistic terms? Are they simply giving the lower courts a path to retract their ruling without forcing a ruling on them?

Additionally as I've read some posts here, these courts would not just willingly reverse these earlier decisions. It requires someone to challenge the ruling in court to get this AWB ban reversed, is that correct?

REALLY hoping to get myself an ar180 one of these days...

GVR stand for Grant (certiorari) Vacate Remand. The "vacate" part means they are throwing out the lower court's ruling and remanding the issue to them saying "try again with our new guidance". No court in their right mind would return the same result as a previously vacated decision.

 

[moto.x]

GVR stand for Grant (certiorari) Vacate Remand. The "vacate" part means they are throwing out the lower court's ruling and remanding the issue to them saying "try again with our new guidance". No court in their right mind would return the same result as a previously vacated decision.

So then it is looking hopeful for us, only a matter of time. How long do you anticipate this process to take?

 

[Threeband]

Okay, to clarify (from the linked article):

The justices also sent back for further review a case from Maryland that challenged the state's 2013 ban on 45 kinds of assault weapons. The high court had in 2017 turned away a previous challenge to the law.

Did the Supreme Court formally GVR our Assault Weapon Ban? The entirety of FSA2013, including 10 round mags and the HQL? Does that mean it is currently vacated?

Why not GVR our Good and Substantial?

 

[esqappellate]

GVR stand for Grant (certiorari) Vacate Remand. The "vacate" part means they are throwing out the lower court's ruling and remanding the issue to them saying "try again with our new guidance". No court in their right mind would return the same result as a previously vacated decision.

The same result on remand is actually reached fairly often after a gvr. And sometimes the Ct grants cert a second time