Jump to content

Bianchi v Frosh - MD AWB


Euler
 Share

Recommended Posts

Docket

Petition for certiorari said:

...

The State of Maryland deems scores of common semiautomatic rifle models "assault weapons" -- and bans them outright.

...

Maryland’s ban thus singles out for special disfavor not a recognized type of firearm, but certain features included on some firearms.

...

Maryland dubs a semiautomatic firearm that possesses one of the prohibited features an "assault weapon," but that is nothing more than argument advanced by a political slogan in the guise of a definition.

...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
On 7/5/2022 at 6:03 PM, Texasgrillchef said:

We will get a briefing schedule within the next two weeks.

 

I'll be interested in seeing what arguments the state brings, particularly the existing Heller standard of, "commonly owned".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I see it, Bianchi doesn't even need to mention Bruen, since the test for an AWB is whether or not the banned class of weapon is commonly owned.

 

I've seen figures numbering in the millions, which definitely meets the very definition of such, which begs the question of what line of argument Frosh will use.

 

I figure he'll fall back on the old "public safety" argument, perhaps try arguing that this class of weapon is "dangerous," but that begs a couple of questions:

 

*Where in Heller is "public safety" an accepted standard?

*How can you dispute the commonality of so-called "assault weapons" given the available numbers?

*If you do cite Bruen, what historical evidence exists of a categorical ban on an entire class of weapon in the early Founding period?

 

He'll try getting creative, but he doesn't have a lot of wiggle room, if any, to argue in favor of the ban.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/5/2022 at 6:18 PM, MrTriple said:

 

I'll be interested in seeing what arguments the state brings, particularly the existing Heller standard of, "commonly owned".

 

The courts have been ignoring the 'common use' test established in Miller for many, many decades, even after Heller echoed it again.  I have to feeling the current SCOTUS is done allowing that to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/5/2022 at 8:14 PM, Flynn said:

 

The courts have been ignoring the 'common use' test established in Miller for many, many decades, even after Heller echoed it again.  I have to feeling the current SCOTUS is done allowing that to happen.

And by GVR'ing the case, the Supreme Court was likely trying to send a (less than) subtle message about how they feel about an AWB. Whatever judges get this case probably have that thought stuck squarely in the front of their minds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Looks like the official GVR from SCOTUS dropped yesterday. I guess the order list from July was merely a list, and this is the official order? Perhaps someone can clarify that point.

 

Oral arguments tentatively scheduled for December 6-9. Supplemental brief due August 22nd; supplemental response brief due September 12th; supplemental reply brief permitted by September 22nd.

 

Edited by MrTriple
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/2/2022 at 1:55 PM, MrTriple said:

Looks like the official GVR from SCOTUS dropped yesterday. I guess the order list from July was merely a list, and this is the official order? Perhaps someone can clarify that point.

...

 

Just because the Supreme Court decided to remand the case back in June doesn't mean official notice was sent down immediately.

 

"The wheels of justice grind slowly, but they do grind."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...