4th Circuit Court Federal Judges Caught Intentionally Manipulating 2A Cases

In a stunning revelation, dissenting judges in the Bianchi case exposed the underhanded tactics of their majority counterparts within the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. This shocking disclosure shines a light on the manipulations aimed at undermining the Second Amendment, confirming long-held suspicions by many gun rights advocates, including Mark Smith of Four Boxes Diner.

The Bianchi Decision Unveiled

The Bianchi case revolves around Maryland’s ban on so-called “assault weapons,” specifically America’s most commonly owned semi-automatic rifles like AR-15s and AK-47s. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which oversees states like Maryland and Virginia, heard the case en banc, meaning all the judges participated. The majority ruled that the ban was constitutional, a decision that contradicts long-standing Supreme Court precedents, including the Heller decision.

Inside the Court’s Manipulation

Mark Smith, a constitutional attorney and gun rights advocate, has long speculated about judicial misconduct within the Fourth Circuit. His suspicions were recently confirmed through a detailed dissent in the Bianchi case, revealing how anti-gun judges played dirty to suppress a pro-Second Amendment ruling.

The dissenting opinion referenced the manipulation tactics by anti-gun judges within the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in footnote number 2 on page 87 of the Bianchi decision. Here is the relevant excerpt from the dissent that highlights the courts’ manipulation:

“This unorthodox procedural posture bears some explanation. After hearing the case in December 2022, the initial panel majority reached a decision and promptly circulated a draft opinion. Yet, for more than a year, no dissent was circulated. The panel thus held the proposed opinion in accordance with our custom that majority and dissenting opinions be published together. One year later, as the proposed opinion sat idle, a different panel heard arguments in United States v. Price, which also involved interpreting and applying Bruen. The Price panel quickly circulated a unanimous opinion that reached a conclusion at odds with the Bianchi’s majority’s year-old proposed opinion. Facing two competing proposed published opinions, the court declined to let the earlier circulated opinion control. Rather, in January 2024, we invoked the once extraordinary mechanism of an initial en banc review. I hope that we will not find ourselves in the posture again soon, suggesting that the majority opinions may be issued without awaiting dissenting opinions to prohibit those dissenting judges or dissenting opinions from exercising a pocket veto to deny or delay fairness and justice.”

This passage reveals that the initial panel had reached a pro-Second Amendment decision by December 2022. However, a dissenting judge delayed circulating their dissenting opinion, effectively stalling the release of the majority decision. This delay allowed another panel to issue an anti-Second Amendment ruling in a separate case (United States v. Price), which conflicted with the Bianchi decision. This conflict prompted the Fourth Circuit to rehear the Bianchi case en banc, ultimately leading to an anti-Second Amendment ruling. This strategic stalling and procedural maneuvering illustrate the manipulation within the court to suppress a favorable Second Amendment ruling. ​

Here’s what happened:

1. Initial Proceedings and Delays:
   • In June 2022, the Supreme Court issued the Bruen decision, impacting many Second Amendment cases.
   • The Bianchi case was sent back to the Fourth Circuit for reconsideration in light of Bruen.
   • In December 2022, a three-judge panel heard oral arguments and soon reached a pro-Second Amendment decision.
2. Strategic Stalling:
   • The dissenting judge in the panel strategically withheld their dissenting opinion for over a year, preventing the pro-Second Amendment decision from being published.
   • Meanwhile, another panel within the Fourth Circuit issued a unanimous anti-gun ruling in a different case, setting up a conflict with the pending Bianchi decision.
3. The En Banc Review:
   • Faced with conflicting opinions, the Fourth Circuit invoked an en banc review, delaying the case further.
   • In March 2024, the en banc court heard the case, ultimately ruling against the Second Amendment.

What This Means for Gun Rights

This manipulation within the Fourth Circuit is a blatant attempt to stifle Second Amendment rights. The delay tactics and strategic dissent suppression demonstrate a disregard for fair judicial process and constitutional rights. However, this revelation provides a clear example of the challenges faced by gun rights advocates in the judicial system.

The Silver Lining

Despite these underhanded tactics, there is hope. The exposure of such manipulation ensures that these actions won’t go unnoticed. Mark Smith and others in the gun rights community remain vigilant, bringing these issues to light and fighting for our constitutional rights.

As Smith points out, the battle isn’t just in the courts; it’s in the court of public opinion. By staying informed and active, gun rights supporters can continue to defend and uphold the Second Amendment against all odds.

Stay tuned for further updates on the Bianchi case and other critical Second Amendment issues. The full Bianchi decision, including the revealing footnote, is embedded below for further reading.

Final Thoughts

The Bianchi case is a stark reminder of the lengths some will go to undermine constitutional rights. It underscores the importance of staying informed and involved in the ongoing battle for gun rights in America.

Read Related:

• 4th Circuit Defies Supreme Court, Upholds AR15 Rifle Ban in MD, Gun Owners File Petition for Cert
• Commonly Owned: Over 24 Million AR15 & AK Rifles In Circulation