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

[Steel Hunter]

Mark Smith weighing in.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can we get a summary of this for those who don't have 30 minutes to figure out what the actual meaning is? Mark is fine and all but his videos only have about 2 minutes of actual content and the rest is filler words.

 

[Apd09]

Can we get a summary of this for those who don't have 30 minutes to figure out what the actual meaning is? Mark is fine and all but his videos only have about 2 minutes of actual content and the rest is filler words.

He repeats what’s he’s said before about the Bruen methodology, see post before: Text implicated, burden shifts to gov, common use and analogous laws.

However the new more thought provoking part is he believes this request is coming from the 2A supporting judges, and it’s meant to back the rest of court into a painted corner. It’s going to make the State explain why Bruen then Heller then Caetano is not the correct way of interpreting the SCOTUS cases and try to refute all 3 of them.
Where’s as the plaintiffs just get to point to the 3 and say SCOTUS already did all the work, there’s nothing for us to do but follow their direction.

So in summary it’s meant to be an FU to the state and make them put on record that Bruen-Heller-Caetano is the correct order.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Steel Hunter]

He repeats what’s he’s said before about the Bruen methodology, see post before: Text implicated, burden shifts to gov, common use and analogous laws.

However the new more thought provoking part is he believes this request is coming from the 2A supporting judges, and it’s meant to back the rest of court into a painted corner. It’s going to make the State explain why Bruen then Heller then Caetano is not the correct way of interpreting the SCOTUS cases and try to refute all 3 of them.
Where’s as the plaintiffs just get to point to the 3 and say SCOTUS already did all the work, there’s nothing for us to do but follow their direction.

So in summary it’s meant to be an FU to the state and make them put on record that Bruen-Heller-Caetano is the correct order.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks you are awesome for that. Hopefully the groundwork is properly laid to back 4th circuit into a corner such that it results in a highly favorable SCOTUS opinion in the future.

 

[whistlersmother]

He also mentions he has no doubt the 4CA will uphold the ban with magical thinking / leftist logic.

As a corollary, it would then have to be re-granted cert to SCOTUS.

 

[FrankZ]

I wondered if the left side of the court was looking to the state to give them a "convincing" argument to keep the ban in place.

 

[delaware_export]

would Maryland drop their challenge or attempt to change their law, at the last minute if they thought they would lose?

or if they lose, would they go for scotus ?

and Risk other states laws? Sort like the first bruen against NYC and the law saying gun owners could onlygo to 7 ranges in the city. They one they muted at scotus with legal games?

 

[Bertfish]

He also mentions he has no doubt the 4CA will uphold the ban with magical thinking / leftist logic.

As a corollary, it would then have to be re-granted cert to SCOTUS.

This is the outcome I see. Once again at the mercy of SCOTUS

 

[BurkeM]

would Maryland drop their challenge or attempt to change their law, at the last minute if they thought they would lose?

NO. They can't back down, they're forced to fight by their own doctrine.

or if they lose, would they go for scotus ?

Probably.

 

[scottyfz6]

would Maryland drop their challenge or attempt to change their law, at the last minute if they thought they would lose?

or if they lose, would they go for scotus ?

and Risk other states laws? Sort like the first bruen against NYC and the law saying gun owners could onlygo to 7 ranges in the city. They one they muted at scotus with legal games?

As my great esteemed collogue Burke said, they wont back down. They will fight and delay until the end. If it kills other laws they will refuse to acknowledge it and then drag that out for 6-10 years.

 

[BurkeM]

Latest update:

This case is scheduled for oral argument on March 20, 2024.


The parties are directed to file supplemental briefs specifically addressing the
following issue:


Whether the inquiry into a weapon’s “common use” occurs at the first
step or second step of the framework articulated in New York State Rifle
& Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022). In
answering that question, the parties are to address who has the burden
of establishing a weapon’s “common use.”


The parties may submit simultaneous briefs, not exceeding ten pages, on or
before Tuesday, March 12, 2024.

 

[Apd09]

Latest update:

This case is scheduled for oral argument on March 20, 2024.


The parties are directed to file supplemental briefs specifically addressing the
following issue:


Whether the inquiry into a weapon’s “common use” occurs at the first
step or second step of the framework articulated in New York State Rifle
& Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022). In
answering that question, the parties are to address who has the burden
of establishing a weapon’s “common use.”


The parties may submit simultaneous briefs, not exceeding ten pages, on or
before Tuesday, March 12, 2024.

Sorry IANAL, is this just another link to what was posted last night or is it the schedule date that’s the update?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Steel Hunter]

SCOTUS Docket 23-863 is also updated with a motion by Brown to delay the state's response by a month citing the en banc as a reason.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-863/302433/20240306154625010_2024-03-06%20Bianchi%20Letter%20to%20Court%20re%20Extension.pdf

Docket for 23-863

 

[Some Guy]

SCOTUS Docket 23-863 is also updated with a motion by Brown to delay the state's response by a month citing the en banc as a reason.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-863/302433/20240306154625010_2024-03-06%20Bianchi%20Letter%20to%20Court%20re%20Extension.pdf

Docket for 23-863

Sounds like a personal problem, Mr. Dietrich.

 

[dblas]

Sorry IANAL, is this just another link to what was posted last night or is it the schedule date that’s the update?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Same link, same oral date.

 

[dblas]

SCOTUS Docket 23-863 is also updated with a motion by Brown to delay the state's response by a month citing the en banc as a reason.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-863/302433/20240306154625010_2024-03-06%20Bianchi%20Letter%20to%20Court%20re%20Extension.pdf

Docket for 23-863

Sucks to be him....

 

[Apd09]

Sucks to be him....

I would like to believe SCOTUS will respond in the most professional way possible saying “you would not need the extension if you didn’t take 14 months to issue a non response on a case, denied”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dblas]

I would like to believe SCOTUS will respond in the most professional way possible saying “you would not need the extension if you didn’t take 14 months to issue a non response on a case, denied”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He didn't take 14 months, the 4th Circus did. Still sucks to be him.

 

[BurkeM]

Sorry IANAL, is this just another link to what was posted last night or is it the schedule date that’s the update?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The parties are directed to file supplemental briefs specifically addressing the
following issue:

Court wants more information. Brand new ORDER.

 

[dblas]

The parties are directed to file supplemental briefs specifically addressing the
following issue:

Court wants more information. Brand new ORDER.

AGAIN...It's the same link posted on the previous page in post 1657.

And the Date for the Oral Arguments is the same.

Why do you keep posting stuff that has already been posted?

 

[AlBeight]

Wrong on so many points.

En Banc hearing is still scheduled for March 20

MarylandAWban.com: Bianchi v. Brown - FPC Law 2A Challenge to Maryland's "Assault Weapons" Ban

MarylandAWban.com: Bianchi v. Brown is a FPC Law 2A lawsuit that seeks to strike down Maryland’s “assault weapons" ban

www.firearmspolicy.org

“So many points”, or just the ONE POINT? What are the other points other than “it was upheld today”?