Snope v Brown

[1972RedNeck]

Snope v Brown - will the Supreme Court take it? Ramifications if they do?

Thoughts?

[Aguila Blanca]

What is Snope v. Brown? Give us a hint.

[mehavey]

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-file...snope-v-brown/

Issue: Whether the Constitution permits the state of Maryland to ban
semiautomatic rifles that are in common use for lawful purposes....

[zukiphile]

The issue as presented by the petitioner:

QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether the Constitution permits the State of
Maryland to ban semiautomatic rifles that are in common use for lawful purposes, including the most popular rifle in America.

And as presented by MD:

QUESTION PRESENTED
Should this Court decline to grant certiorari to
consider the constitutionality of Maryland’s assault
weapons ban where (1) that ban is consistent with this
Court’s recognition in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554
U.S. 570 (2008), that jurisdictions may ban “weapons that
are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the
like”; (2) the Fourth Circuit faithfully applied New York
State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022),
to conclude that Maryland’s law is consistent with this
Nation’s historical tradition of “regulating those weapons
that were invented for offensive purposes and were
ultimately proven to pose exceptional dangers to innocent
civilians,” Pet. App. 69a; and (3) there is no need to resolve
a conflict among the lower courts?

Heller didn't hold that states may ban “weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like”.

Heller at 627 addresses a potential objection to not reaching the issue of protection of actual service weapons.

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause.

This is clearly a discussion of the influence of the prefatory language, not a decision that "M16 rifles and the like" don't fall within constitutional protection. Notably, "M16 rifles and the like" aren't what MD bans.

[natman]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

This is clearly a discussion of the influence of the prefatory language, not a decision that "M16 rifles and the like" don't fall within constitutional protection. Notably, "M16 rifles and the like" aren't what MD bans.

It's all part of the courts' based in anti-gun states program of misquoting, distorting and flat out making up case law in an effort to promote their political beliefs rather than the law. In this case, they've taken the words "M-16 rifles and the like may be banned" completely out of context, treating a phrase plucked out of a hypothetical premise in dicta as if it were a command in the holding. Never mind that their conclusion directly contradicts the common use test and the prohibition on banning an entire class of arms used for lawful purposes that actually ARE in Heller.

[Aguila Blanca]

An AR-15 is not an M16, and is not a military rifle (at least, not in the United States).

[Sharkbite]

An AR-15 is not an M16, and is not a military rifle (at least, not in the United States).

Is the AR-15 used by any military, anywhere in the WORLD? With actual M-16’s avail via Military contract purchasing, why would any Mil anywhere buy rifles with reduced capabilities?

[44 AMP]

Even if the AR 15 is in service by some military, in some capacity somewhere is the world, so barking what??

I don't see where that has any bearing on the Supreme Court hearing to declining the case. Doesn't matter if its the service arm of lower east Slobovia, its NOT the service arm of the US.

(1) that ban is consistent with this
Court’s recognition in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554
U.S. 570 (2008), that jurisdictions may ban “weapons that
are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the
like”;

Didn't Heller essentially say exactly the opposite??

(2) the Fourth Circuit faithfully applied New York
State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022),
to conclude that Maryland’s law is consistent with this
Nation’s historical tradition of “regulating those weapons
that were invented for offensive purposes and were
ultimately proven to pose exceptional dangers to innocent
civilians,”

Anyone have any idea WHERE in our historical tradition this exists, IF it actually does???

[natman]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

What is Snope v. Brown? Give us a hint.

It used to be called Bianchi v Frosh, but it's dragged on so long that Frosh is no longer Maryland's AG and Bianchi got tired of waiting and moved out of state.

It's the case against Maryland's AW ban. It's been to SCOTUS, GVRed and Maryland has replied by ignoring / distorting Heller, Caetano, Bruen etc. It's now back to SCOTUS to decide to grant cert again.

[natman]

Here's some detail in how the Fourth Circuit "interpreted" the case (It was Bianchi v Brown when I originally wrote this):

The Fourth Circuit recently found Maryland's "assault weapon" ban constitutional in their ruling in Bianchi v Brown. A comparison of what SCOTUS actually wrote shows that the inferior court is not confused, but is indulging in misquoting, distorting and deliberate lying in their efforts to twist the rulings of the superior court to fit their political agenda. Here are some comparisons between what SCOTUS clearly wrote in these decisions and how the Fourth Circuit "interpreted" it:

Fourth Circuit Court Bianchi v Brown lies and distortions, Part 1:

Here's what SCOTUS said:

Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. DC v Heller

Note that arms in common use for lawful purposes (plural) are protected. That's ALL lawful purposes, including self defense.

Here's how it was distorted:

Heller established that “the central component” of the individual right codified by the Second Amendment was “self-defense.”...The common-law right to self-defense, in turn, was understood by the founding generation to mean the right of “a citizen to ‘repel force by force’ when ‘the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury.’” ...The pre-existing right codified by the Second Amendment is thus about amplifying the power of individual citizens to project force greater than they can muster with their own bodies so that they may protect themselves when government cannot. Limitations on this right to self-defense have been recognized in common law since before our nation’s founding.

These limitations inform the historical backdrop of the right ultimately enshrined in our Constitution: to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. Just as the right to self-defense had limitations at the time of the founding, so too did the right to keep and bear arms that enabled it.

The Fourth Circuit has redefined the scope of the Second Amendment from "in common use for lawful purposes, such as self-defense" where self-defense is an example of a lawful purpose, to self-defense being the only purpose. They then go on to say that since self-defense has limitations, so do the arms that may be used for self-defense, and that since [in their estimation] "assault weapons" are not suitable for self-defense, they may be banned.

[natman]

Fourth Circuit Court Bianchi v Brown lies and distortions, Part 2:

Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. DC v Heller

The Supreme Judicial Court’s holding that stun guns may be banned as “dangerous and unusual weapons” fares no better. As the per curiam opinion recognizes, this is a conjunctive test: A weapon may not be banned unless it is both dangerous and unusual. Caetano v Mass. [emphasis in the original]

Arms that may be banned are those that are “dangerous and unusual”. Note the conjunction AND. In order to be banned a weapon must be BOTH dangerous AND unusual. Not “dangerous OR unusual” or “unusually dangerous” or “excessively dangerous”.

The Fourth Circuit's distorted version:

Many of the firearms regulated by the Maryland statute are “dangerous and unusual weapons” that are not “in common use today for self-defense.” ... Rather, they are weapons “most useful in military service” with firepower far exceeding the needs of the typical self-defense situation. These weapons therefore do not fit within the Second Amendment’s ambit and thus “may be banned.”

"The assault weapons at issue fall outside the ambit of protection offered by the Second Amendment because, in essence, they are military-style weapons designed for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense.

Despite the crystal clear definition of "dangerous and unusual" in Caetano, the Fourth Circuit has changed the standard to "excessively dangerous". Miller ruled against short barreled shotguns because they were not suitable for militia use; now the Fourth Circuit wants to regulate against AR15s because they ARE suitable for militia use.

[natman]

Fourth Circuit Court Bianchi v Brown lies and distortions, Part 3:

What SCOTUS said:
“It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed.” ...."The District contends that since it only bans one type of firearm, ‘residents still have access to hundreds more,’ and thus its prohibition does not implicate the Second Amendment because it does not threaten total disarmament. We think that argument frivolous. It could be similarly contended that all firearms may be banned so long as sabers were permitted.”) Heller, 554 U.S. at 570.

The availability of other types of arms does not justify banning arms that are commonly used for legal purposes. Yet the Fourth Circuit uses it anyway, along with a hearty dose of interest balancing, inventing precedent out of thin air and citing recent historical analogues well past the date where they would reflect attitudes in the 1790s.

...the Maryland law fits comfortably within our nation’s tradition of firearms regulation. It is but another example of a state regulating excessively dangerous weapons once their incompatibility with a lawful and safe society becomes apparent, while nonetheless preserving avenues for armed self-defense.

[44 AMP]

Isn't it interesting to see how the Second Amendment, which is a limit on the authority of government is being twisted and added to in order to be used by a government as a limit on the people?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but how many trips to the well does a lower court get?? Isn't this the second time the lower court has not complied with a SCOTUS ruling over exactly the same matter??

Aside from invalidating the lower court ruling what can SCOTUS do? What should they do??

Seems to me that the second time a lower court defies a SCOTUS ruling on the same subject, something about the lower court needs to be changed. Can SCOTUS do that? Is there a legal mechanism to recall/ remove judges?? Are the judges in the 4th Circuit elected positions?? or Federal appointments??

[natman]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Isn't it interesting to see how the Second Amendment, which is a limit on the authority of government is being twisted and added to in order to be used by a government as a limit on the people?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but how many trips to the well does a lower court get?? Isn't this the second time the lower court has not complied with a SCOTUS ruling over exactly the same matter??

Aside from invalidating the lower court ruling what can SCOTUS do? What should they do??

Seems to me that the second time a lower court defies a SCOTUS ruling on the same subject, something about the lower court needs to be changed. Can SCOTUS do that? Is there a legal mechanism to recall/ remove judges?? Are the judges in the 4th Circuit elected positions?? or Federal appointments??

I feel your pain. This is the second time. First the case went up to SCOTUS, who were fair enough to give the inferior court a second chance to reevaluate the case under the direction given by the then new Bruen case and this is what the Fourth Circuit came up with.

SCOTUS needs to grant cert again and give the inferior court a through smackdown if the word "Supreme" is going to mean anything.

Federal judgeships are appointments. They would have to be impeached by Congress.

[1972RedNeck]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but how many trips to the well does a lower court get?

Aside from invalidating the lower court ruling what can SCOTUS do? What should they do?

Seems to me that the second time a lower court defies a SCOTUS ruling on the same subject, something about the lower court needs to be changed. Can SCOTUS do that? Is there a legal mechanism to recall/ remove judges?

Those are questions of mine as well. There have been positive SCOTUS rulings in the last few years, but the positive rulings have changed nothing for us peons.

What's it going to take?

[WeedWacker]

The argument against short barreled shotguns back in the day was that they served no military purpose and were therefore not protected by the second amendment (I forget the court case, someone here may remember). Today, if a firearm appears to have the appearance of peripheral military purpose, it is too dangerous and is therefore not protected by the second amendment. If this contradiction can somehow make it to SCOTUS through these AWB's and then get a favorable ruling it would be extremely beneficial to us to amend the NFA and GCA.

[natman]

Originally Posted by WeedWacker

The argument against short barreled shotguns back in the day was that they served no military purpose and were therefore not protected by the second amendment (I forget the court case, someone here may remember). Today, if a firearm appears to have the appearance of peripheral military purpose, it is too dangerous and is therefore not protected by the second amendment. If this contradiction can somehow make it to SCOTUS through these AWB's and then get a favorable ruling it would be extremely beneficial to us to amend the NFA and GCA.

US v Miller, 1939

Miller is an unusual case because Miller was dead by the time it reached SCOTUS and nobody was there to present his case. It was decided solely on the government's testimony.

"Miller ruled against short barreled shotguns because they were not suitable for militia use; now the Fourth Circuit wants to regulate against AR15s because they ARE suitable for militia use." Post 11.

[44 AMP]

"Miller ruled against short barreled shotguns because they were not suitable for militia use...

Miller is an unusual case, and SCOTUS of the time ruled using "court speak" (what you or I might call "weasel words").

They did not, technically say that short barreled shotguns have no militia use.

They said "this court has been presented no evidence" that they were suitable for militia use, and since there was no one to argue the case against the govt, they ruled in favor of the govt, upholding the govt interpretation of the NFA 34,

The govt, (and everyone else) took that ruling a saying the entire NFA 34 was constitutional and they could enforce it under their own interpretations.


SCOTUS rules on narrow points of law. One of their principles is that they do not (cannot and probably should not) ensure that those ruling are correctly used by the govt (including other, lower court systems). That's not their job.

IF the govt (at any level) does not comply with the SCOTUS rulings, the high court will not act, UNTIL a case concerning that comes before them.

It is, properly, the responsibility of the Executive branch to enforce the law, and if a city or state defies a SCOTUS ruling, using their own definition of what SCOTUS ruled as their justification, it is the Executive branch that should correct that.

Sadly the Executive branch has a very spotty and poor record of doing so...
 

[natman]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

It is, properly, the responsibility of the Executive branch to enforce the law, and if a city or state defies a SCOTUS ruling, using their own definition of what SCOTUS ruled as their justification, it is the Executive branch that should correct that.

Sadly the Executive branch has a very spotty and poor record of doing so...
 

The Democrats haven't put this much effort into defying a Supreme Court decision since Democratic Governor George Wallace defied Brown v Board of Education and vowed "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" and stood in a schoolhouse door to block black students from registering. President Kennedy federalized the Alabama National Guard, and Guard General Graham then commanded Wallace to step aside.

SCOTUS certainly wasn't going to get this sort of support from Biden on 2A issues, but things are different now.

The thought of the National Guard ordering Governors Newsom, Pritzker and/or Horchul to obey SCOTUS and follow the Constitution warms my heart.

[natman]

Snope v Brown is scheduled for SCOTUS conference tomorrow, 1/10/25. This means SCOTUS will decide whether or not to grant cert (again).

Also scheduled are Ocean State Tactical v Rhode Island, a magazine capacity case and Gray v Jennings, a case about injunctions in cases that are still pending.

These three cases being scheduled for the same day give hope that SCOTUS will grant cert to all three and issue a conclusive definition of the scope of the Second Amendment and the meaning of the common use test. Gray v Jennings will give an opportunity to define how injunctions can be used in pending cases, which could give a useful way of dealing with the inevitable reaction from the rogue states.

We shall soon see.

[natman]

Update: Gray v Jennings has been denied cert.

Snope and Ocean Tactical have been rescheduled for conference on 1/17.