RICHMOND, Va. (CN) — For the second time, a Fourth Circuit panel on Tuesday heard arguments in a legal battle between gun owners and Maryland over the constitutionality of the state’s semiautomatic weapons ban.

Gun owners and gun rights organizations, including Firearms Policy Coalition and the Second Amendment Foundation, brought the lawsuit against the state two years ago. The complaint was dismissed last year by a federal judge who said he was bound by prior Fourth Circuit precedent.

On appeal, the plaintiffs argue that after the U.S. Supreme Court’s June ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, Maryland’s ban on semiautomatic weapons like the AR-15 is no longer constitutional.

“Bruen clarifies how the Court’s Second Amendment test applies specifically to laws like Maryland’s barring the possession of certain types of firearms," the gun rights supporters' brief to the Fourth Circuit states. “With respect to the Second Amendment’s text, the Court reiterated that ‘the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.’"

featureless wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 10:46 pm Circuit Court of Appeals aren't bound by another district's opinions. They carry weight when cited, but aren't precedent. In fact, a circuit split where two districts have ruled opposite of each other will increase the likelihood of SCOTUS hearing an appeal.

What is lacking from the quote above is that this case was GVRd by SCOTUS over the summer. Essentially saying the 4th got it wrong. Do over. I listened to the oral argument. Two of the three judges seem inclined to accept the standard of "8n common use for lawful purposes." The third very much wants to ban scary rifles no matter the law. I am hopeful based on the orals.

Here's a link to the oral arguments if anyone is interested: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/ ... 221206.mp3

featureless wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 8:03 am Marginal!

sikacz wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 10:18 am

featureless wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 8:03 am Marginal!

Yes, I should be realistic with my expectations.

highdesert wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 10:50 am In this case Bianchi v Frosh, I agree it's interesting that after SCOTUS granted cert, vacated the 4th Circuit's decision and remanded it back to the 4th circuit, a panel of the 4th heard a new appeal. Cases post Bruen that SCOTUS GVRd from the 9th Circuit were sent back by the 9th to the district courts for rehearing based on Bruen. Seems like some disparity there depending on circuit. Maybe it's just that the 9th Circuit is very anti-firearms.

featureless wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:06 am

highdesert wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 10:50 am In this case Bianchi v Frosh, I agree it's interesting that after SCOTUS granted cert, vacated the 4th Circuit's decision and remanded it back to the 4th circuit, a panel of the 4th heard a new appeal. Cases post Bruen that SCOTUS GVRd from the 9th Circuit were sent back by the 9th to the district courts for rehearing based on Bruen. Seems like some disparity there depending on circuit. Maybe it's just that the 9th Circuit is very anti-firearms.

Yes, very anti-firearm. CA9 will do everything it can to stall having to make a ruling or allowing these cases to run up to SCOTUS.