The Supreme Court of The United States has denied Maryland a second 30-day extension to reply to a writ of certiorari filed by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) in a lawsuit challenging the state’s assault weapons ban (AWB).
The two gun rights organizations filed a lawsuit known as Snopes v. Brown (formerly known as Bianchi v. Frosh) with the goal of the courts knocking down the Maryland law banning so-called “assault weapons.” The plaintiffs claim that the law is unconstitutional. Maryland forbids the sale, purchase, and transfer of certain semiautomatic firearms. Maryland defines an “assault weapon” as a semiautomatic centerfire rifle with a detachable magazine and at least two of the following features: a folding stock, a grenade launcher or flare launcher, and a flash suppressor. The law also considers AR or AK pattern pistols “assault pistols.”
The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The District Court dismissed the case. This led the plaintiffs to appeal to the United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fourth Circuit is notorious for being anti-gun. Most people think that the Ninth Circuit is the most hostile federal court to the Second Amendment, but the Fourth Circuit actually leans farther left on gun issues than its Western United States counterpart.
Usually, cases are heard by a three-judge panel at the Circuit Court level. Only after the panel’s ruling will the loser get a chance to ask for an en banc hearing where the full bench considers the case. If that happens, the panel’s decision will be vacated. In this case, the court itself snatched up the case for an en banc hearing. This unusual move surprised most legal scholars.
The Fourth Circuit would hear oral arguments. The plaintiffs argued that the law fails the Bruen standard. The Bruen standard says that the court must first look at the original text of the Second Amendment. The second step is to examine the history and tradition of firearms regulations in the United States from the founding era. This step is done by the state presenting historical analogues. Most thought the historical analogues for an assault weapons ban fell short of relevant, but the Circuit Court sided with Maryland anyway. The judges ruled that Maryland’s AWB was constitutional, saving the law.
The plaintiffs would file for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, asking the Justices to review the case. Maryland would ask for and receive a 30-day extension to reply for the filing. Maryland would then ask for another 30-day extension, but the court denied the state’s request this time. Instead, it would only give the state ten days to reply.
The case is scheduled for a conference in December, so we might know if cert will be granted by January. If cert is granted, then the case will be heard in the spring. If Maryland were given the extra time it requested, it would move the possible hearing of the case from the 2024-2025 session to the 2025-2026 session. Some have theorized that the state was trying to stall for time.
This lawsuit could be one of SCOTUS’s most groundbreaking gun cases if cert is granted. It will have lasting effects across the nation. Several other cases are working their way through the court system dealing with multiple states’ assault weapons ban. This one case has the chance to knock down all those laws.
There is no guarantee that SCOTUS will take up the case, but at least two Justices have shown a willingness to take up a challenge to AWBs.
About John Crump
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
the 4th circus didn’t wait for the 3 judge panel to render its verdict, which would have been in favor of plaintiff. the lone leftist judge waited nearly a year, thats when the 4th circus decided they would hear it en banc. this has been a travesty of justice since the case was filed and clear evidence that most of these judges shouldn’t be on the bench. then when the en banc panel upheld the unconstitutional law the plaintiff asked for writ of cert to scotus. then the state asked for a extension because they had too many cases on… Read more »
wow, this one didn’t have to be approved.
From the article: Several other cases are working their way through the court system dealing with multiple states’ assault weapons ban. This one case has the chance to knock down all those laws The way things are now, Blue states do what they want and what the Supreme Court decides is just a waste of money and time just like the laws on the books for illegals and giving them driver licenses as well as having sanctuary states. Oregoneistan claims that it is unconstitutional to not give an illegal in our state a drivers license. The people voted no license… Read more »
The problem with expecting the court system to rectify these violations of not only of the Constitution, but also previous court rulings is liberal progressive democrats will never stop in their efforts to deny, delay and destroy the 2nd Amendment Rights of ‘We the People’. As long as they are allowed any political power or sway in regards to the making or enforcing of laws. Our freedoms and liberties will always be under attack. Something the Founding Patriots understood all to well when dealing with the same types of tyrannical injustices under the boot heel of the British Crown. The… Read more »