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

[Mister F]

You may disagree but I think had the Democrats held the House, we'd see filibuster reform.

I think we'd either see a requirement it physically be done, or something like the majority party can designate 3 bills a year as filibuster exempt.

Sent from my SM-S918U1 using Tapatalk

I actually think the physically done part would be fair. Allll of these bozos don’t have to use any effort to block up things. Not playing sides. Thatd be fair.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[308Scout]

91 days and counting.

 

[Ap5fan]

91 days and counting.

2 more weeks

 

[Arcamm]

3% chance you are wrong.

 

[Threeband]

I keep checking this thread to see if the ban has been overturned.

Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?

 

[Biggfoot44]

I guarantee you 85% of active permit holders don't even know this bill got voted on. Most of them thinking theyre legal and not even knowing what MSI is doing for their rights or the state gov is doing to take it away.

This should be interesting...

This Suit ? The MoCo Suit ? Or are you thinking of the SB-1 thread ?

 

[LuckyShot]

This Suit ? The MoCo Suit ? Or are you thinking of the SB-1 thread ?

posted in wrong thread. It's late...
Thank you.

 

[Mister F]

Pop onto the CA4 daily opinions page around 3pm any given day and you will see that criminal appeals and habeas petitions are like 90% of their stuff, almost every one affirmed, and like a giant pile of poop to shovel while they also have to do the constitutional cases like the one at issue here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Boxcab]

In the NJ lawsuit, the Judge noted that there were thousands of pages of submittals by both parties and several friends of the court to be considered. That all takes time and any ruling may need to address the claims made in those filings. Not a trivial task.

We want a good solid ruling, so when it hits, there will be no wiggle room for our enemies.


.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

 

[Deep Lurker]

No decision from the 4th Circuit yet.

But I thought you might find the oral argument in this case interesting to listen to - - or to listen to again - - before the ”Bianchi” decision comes down.

Never forget how much Frosh hated us.

Frosh may be gone, but the new AG and the entire Maryland government STILL hate us.

This was evident yet again in the shameful lying farce that was conducted by JPC yesterday afternoon during the voting session on SB-1.

So perhaps this is a good time, as we await the 4th Circuit decision in Bianchi, to listen again to the oral argument in this case from December 6, 2022 to fully appreciate the depth and intensity of this decades-old contempt and hatred for us, as revealed here in court.

It is well to remember that it is not just our legislators, but the entire office of the Maryland Attorney General, who will do and say anything to destroy us and our liberty.

This open contempt compels them to dissemble and play semantic games and conjure imaginary danger - - not just in the Statehouse but also in a court of law - - to defeat us and outlaw our Constitutional rights.

Here, Maryland Assistant Attorney General Robert Scott (with AG Frosh sitting next to him at the counsel table in the 4th Circuit Courtroom in Richmond) argued for a thorough DISCOVERY to be conducted in “Bianchi” and for the case to be sent back down to the District Court to further stall this case there.

Yet this same AAG Robert Scott entered my own case - - “Hulbert/MSI v. Pope” - - back in October 2019 for the sole purpose of preventing legal discovery to find the truth.

Scott represented MD Lt. Gov. Boyd Rutherford, and Scott argued at the District Court to quash our subpoena to Rutherford to depose him personally during our discovery about the night my brother Jeff and I were arrested while legally demonstrating for the Second Amendment with five other Patriot Picket members in front of the MD Statehouse.

Rutherford’s MSP Executive Protection Detail initiated the chain of events that resulted in that illegal arrest, so what Rutherford knew about this event and that night was relevant to our case. Thanks to AAG Scott and Frosh, we couldn’t depose Rutherford.

There, legal discovery did NOT mean “to find the truth.”

Counsel for Bianchi begins the oral argument below at the 2:03:10 hour mark in this YouTube audio recording, before AAG Scott commences his argument time for MD at the 2:19:00 mark.

Note that about the 2:27:00 mark AAG Scott complains to the Court: “There’s been no discovery.”

A minute later, at about the 2:28:00 mark, AAG Scott pretentiously lectures the 3-judge appellate panel: “That’s the whole purpose of discovery, is to find the truth.”




With Maryland, it’s always “heads we win, tails you lose.”

They have never stopped working to destroy our liberty, and this oral argument is a good reminder that they will never stop in the courts either.

Likewise, JPR Chairman Smith repeatedly said the quiet part out loud yesterday that SB-1 wasn’t to be stopped regardless, and railroaded this illegal bill through the Committee voting session to intentionally strip us of our Constitutional rights.

The yellow gun stars we wear and display “On The Bricks” symbolize that their hatred for those who are innocent and peaceful - - thus different from them - - historically leads to the death of the defenseless, as SB-1 intends.

 

[Deep Lurker]

This “Four Boxes” video gives an excellent explainer about precisely what AAG Scott and the other anti-gun litigators have attempted to do in Bianchi and cases like it:



H/T to swinokur!

 

[jcutonilli]

I keep checking this thread to see if the ban has been overturned.

Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?

Things are moving closer to an opinion. There were four cases that were argued to the panel that is deciding this case. Two of the cases were decided in January. The third case was decided today.

On the other hand Kolbe took ~10 months from argument to opinion for both the panel and en banc decisions.

 

[Armed Citizen]

Pop onto the CA4 daily opinions page around 3pm any given day and you will see that criminal appeals and habeas petitions are like 90% of their stuff, almost every one affirmed, and like a giant pile of poop to shovel while they also have to do the constitutional cases like the one at issue here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is this the page you're talking about? I'm going to start keeping an eye out myself...

Published Only

www.ca4.uscourts.gov

 

[Mister F]

Is this the page you're talking about? I'm going to start keeping an eye out myself...

Published Only

www.ca4.uscourts.gov

That’s the one!

It seems by 1400 the prior days is wiped away and by 3pm any opinions for that day are put up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Objee]

You may disagree but I think had the Democrats held the House, we'd see filibuster reform.

The House has zero say in the filibuster. It exists only in the Senate, and only the Senate can change their own rules. The party that controls the House is irrelevant in that regard.

 

[SPQM]

Things are moving closer to an opinion. There were four cases that were argued to the panel that is deciding this case. Two of the cases were decided in January. The third case was decided today.

Also, if they had released Bianchi before MSI v Hogan; then the State would have had time to fine-tune it's arguments based upon the Bianchi opinion. Waiting until after MSI v. Hogan is argued to drop Bianchi removes this option.

EDIT: I incorrectly called it Kolbe, instead of MSI v Hogan. With so many cases; it all blurs together...

 

[Crazytrain]

The House has zero say in the filibuster. It exists only in the Senate, and only the Senate can change their own rules. The party that controls the House is irrelevant in that regard.

I think he was saying that if the Dems held the house AS WELL the immediate benefit would outweigh the longterm cost and they'd kill the filibuster. With the house in R hands, the benefit is limited and could bite them when the chamber changes hands.

 

[Occam]

I think he was saying that if the Dems held the house AS WELL the immediate benefit would outweigh the longterm cost and they'd kill the filibuster. With the house in R hands, the benefit is limited and could bite them when the chamber changes hands.

If so, why didn’t they do that over the last few years? It’s because at least a couple of D senators in public and several in private said they would never support it. Because at least a few of them aren’t idiots.

 

[Mike1690]

Still no decision…….

 

[Ap5fan]

Still no decision…….

2 more weeks