The gun rights community has grown blessed with gun cases in state and federal court across America. Even as someone who works in this world effectively full-time, I have a hard time keeping up with them. One case in Maryland known as Bianchi definitely merits attention.
What makes this case special and more likely to be accepted for consideration? It’s a challenge to Maryland’s ban on popular self-defense semi-auto rifles and pistols. The United States Supreme Court already accepted the case in June 2022. SCOTUS vacated the lower court decision supporting the ban and remanded it back to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to “try again.”
Since then, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has dragged their feet. They stalled, and stalled some more. The three-judge panel sat on the case for over a year then announced the Bianchi case would be held “en banc” in front of the entire panel of judges. That has added a whole new batch of delays.
So the plaintiffs have filed a Writ of Certiorari for the US Supreme Court to once more hear the case even before the Fourth Circuit has ruled.
The Fourth Circuit has clearly delayed doing their jobs as an inferior court. But then again, these Fourth Circuit judges are using the same playbook that some judges on the Seventh Circuit are using against our challenge to Illinois gun and magazine ban. That playbook? To drag things out until one or more of SCOTUS justices who voted for Bruen die or retire. That way they can be replaced by such mental giants as Ketanji Brown Jackson who doesn’t even know what a woman is.
Clearly all eyes are on the US Supreme Court in this matter. What’s more, with the “Spirit of Aloha” trumping the US Constitution from the recent ruling out of the Hawaiian Supreme Court, we’re reaching a point where SCOTUS will have to reign in these rogue justices or face a breakdown of the rule of law.
Mark has more on the Hawaiian case here too.
Nothing good will happen with that.
Unless you count Civil War 2.0 as something good, which it is NOT.
Mark Smith blowing the hell out of “ken’s” long winded blather, about the Hawai’i SC. Mark Smith is a lot easier to listen to over trying to read “ken’s” misguided pile of manure screed! GO AWAY “ken”, you quisling narcissist!! Take your fractious LIES with you!!
That’s funny, I Watched mark’s video tonight, Long after I had written my comment and it seems he echoes me rather than blowing. Anything out of the water …
And half of the things that I commented, he didn’t even discuss. So how could that have been “blown out of the water?”
grandad? You smoked too much paraquat in your day. You need to go to bed, but change your diaper before you do!
And again, I respectfully demand that you retract your defamatory statements. I am not a traitor and I am not any of the other things you’ve accused me of either. You are going to be sued and you are going to be hit with significant punitive damages.
“ken” says: “Inasmuch as hawaii Was actually a Kingdom at the time of the adoption of the American second amendment, then their historical analogues are very important.”
“ken”, as you stated in another post (c/p above), the fact that Hawai’i (with a capital first letter) was a Kingdom (as with a king/monarchy) at the adaptation of the U S Constitution/Second amendment is IRRELEVANT because, as with states admitted to the United States, they accept the US Constitution as well as adopt a state Constitution for their state, that is drawn up similar/guided by the US Constitution; therefore the fact Hawai’i was a “kingdom” previously is IRRELEVANT, period.
Where do you “get off” criticizing John Boch for a misspelled word/mistake as “bad grammar”? when your sentence structure/grammar is pathetic; you capitalize in the middle of a (mega over-running/long-winded) sentence, while NOT capitalizing “hawaii”, or first letters of a new (mega over-running/long-winded) sentence. Go back to a basic, Jr High English/grammar class, imbecile. Focus on over-running sentences, what words need to be capitalized, and basic sentence construction.
“ken”, you are REALLY a pathetic, arrogant, narcissistic, quisling, pile of scum, just to describe your “good points”, but if you wear a hat, no one will notice your “main point” (yer head)!
JUST GO AWAY, “ken” no one here likes you except yourself! That’s the narcissist in your pathetic “personality”, if what you display can be called “personality”.
Gsl1589, You lack a rudimentary understanding of the manner in which states adopt their constitutions. I suggest you go back to eighth grade civics class and relearn that I don’t have enough time or space to explain it to you.
I’ll just reply to Jeff here rather than add another post to the lengthy heap: Jeff, I’m not proven wrong on anything yet and I don’t read mark Smith. I listen to his youtube videos. He is brilliant. I find his work inspiring , but he hasn’t said or done anything that contradicts anything i’ve said or done.
OK, I’m on a roll tonight. The court wins regarding 2A are few and far between even though we have a constitution that clearly spells out that this right won’t be infringed. When are people going to realize the common denominator??? What do the nefarious judges, socialist defense attorneys, and incompetent representing lawyers have in common? They all took an oath to the BAR association. They are all in this together. They make money no matter what, win or lose. Their BAR oath supersedes defending the constitution. They are considered foreign agents by our government (see FARA). Wake up. All these court cases are rigged. Follow the money.
The issue of judges and appellate courts playing procedural games and ignoring Heller and Breuen is obvious. Will the USSC finally take an opportunity to place a big slap on these hi-jinks? In my opinion the stars are in alignment. The disregard and suppression of our 2A Rights is egregious and must be corrected most riki-tik.
Ken, see the filings for cert in the three IL cases. This happened yesterday. In one of those filings the ridiculous legal reasoning and disregard for USSC precedent and respect for American citizens fundamental rights was cited as example. You misread Mark Smith on this issue and you can view William Kirk (Washington Gun Law) on this as well. You are wrong.