AR15s (courtesy gunsinthenews.com)

In a significant move toward challenging Maryland’s controversial ban on so-called “assault weapons,” the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA), along with several other plaintiffs, have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider their case, Bianchi v. Frosh. This marks a continued effort to challenge what these organizations view as unconstitutional limitations on the Second Amendment rights of American citizens.

Joining SAF and CCRKBA in this legal battle are the Firearms Policy Coalition, Field Traders, LLC, and three individuals, David Snope, Micah Schaefer, and Dominic Bianchi, after whom the case is named. Their collective effort underscores the growing contention surrounding firearm regulations in the United States, particularly regarding the ownership of modern semiautomatic rifles.

The push for the Supreme Court’s intervention comes after a perplexing delay in the judicial process. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in late June 2022 to grant certiorari, vacate the prior ruling by a lower federal court and remand the case to the Fourth Circuit for reconsideration in light of the Bruen ruling, the case encountered an unusual stall. Despite being fully briefed and argued before a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit, over a year passed without a panel opinion. The Fourth Circuit then unexpectedly decided to hear the case en banc (before the full bench), a move that has significantly delayed resolution and prompted accusations of judicial maneuvering to avoid a ruling favorable to the plaintiffs.

Alan M. Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of SAF, emphasized the national significance of the issue, noting that the type of rifle banned by Maryland is the most popular in the country and widely used by Americans. He criticized the appellate courts, including the Fourth Circuit, for their interpretations post-Bruen, arguing that the Supreme Court’s intervention is crucial for a definitive resolution.

Adam Kraut, SAF’s Executive Director, expressed frustration over the Fourth Circuit’s handling of the case, suggesting that the court’s en banc decision was an attempt to override a potentially disagreeable panel decision. He underscored the need for the Supreme Court to step in to ensure lower courts properly and promptly address such critical Second Amendment issues, highlighting the ongoing infringement on the plaintiffs’ rights.

The petition for certiorari before judgment is an extraordinary step, reflecting the plaintiffs’ view of the case’s urgent public importance and their determination to see the Maryland Assault Weapons Ban overturned. As the legal battle unfolds, all eyes are on the Supreme Court, awaiting a decision that could have profound implications for gun laws and Second Amendment rights across the United States.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

69 COMMENTS

  1. It’s interesting how the atheists will tell you that prayer is worthless. And those same atheists will tell you that voting is also worthless.

    But they will tell you to enjoy that legal butt sex and drugs.

    Yeah that’s right I said it again.

    • What good are legal butt sex and drugs if you don’t enjoy them?

      (You seem to know an awful lot of atheists.)

      • Well President Eisenhower did say in his final address to the nation. That the enemies of the United States are atheistic in nature.

        They seem to believe that “real atheism” was not tried in the USSR. But, “they know how to make it really work in America.”

        • pretty clever responding three hours later and managing to jump ahead of stroke box by replying to ya don’ say. howd’ja get so clever?

    • “And those same atheists will tell you that voting is also worthless“

      Nope, every atheist I know votes to support the United States Constitution which, as Thomas Jefferson noted, places a wall of separation between church and state.

      Regarding prayer, pray in one hand and shit in the other, and see which one fills up first

      But truly, Chris does seem to mention same sex activities quite often, how interesting that he can’t keep his mind off all that sex activity he seems to enjoy talking about.

      • I wonder who knows more atheists — Chris in Ky or Miner49er? And do they regularly poll their pool of atheists to come up with a consensus on an issue?

        “every atheist I know”

        What kind of a sample size are we talking about? What is the margin or error? Does any atheist in your pool dare to express a thought that goes against the hivemind of the atheist collective?

        “Chris does seem to mention same sex activities quite often”

        What is your prejudice against same-sex activity? Did the bad man touch you when you were a child?

        • “What is your prejudice against same-sex activity?“

          Please reread my comment, I did not in anyway attack the practice of same-sex activities, I only pointed out Chris speaks of them often indicating it is subject near and dear to his heart.

          “Did the bad man touch you when you were a child?“

          Interesting, I made no mention of child molestation in my comment, this is something you brought up indicating it is a subject on your mind.

          Thanks for giving us an insight into your thoughts.

        • “What kind of a sample size are we talking about?“

          Um, please read my comment concerning sample size:

          “Every atheist I know”

          “the hivemind of the atheist collective?“

          Ain’t no such thing as an ‘atheist collective’, atheism is just the disbelief of the claim of a god/gods.

          Theists claim a God/Gods exists, atheist say show me credible evidence of your claim.

          One should not believe a claim until credible evidence is presented to justify belief in the claim.

        • From 2007

          “The Four Horsemen: The Conversation That Sparked an Atheist Revolution”
          Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett.

          I know the first three on this list publicly came out against individual firearms ownership. But Harris does talk about owning guns.

          He certainly does want his guns, doesn’t he???

        • “Um, please read my comment concerning sample size: Every atheist I know”

          So, both of you. According to the science of statistics, that’s not a large enough pool for the results to be valid. And the margin of error has got to be off the charts.

          “Thanks for giving us an insight into your thoughts.”

          I see. Every time that you point out a remark about same-sex activity, you’re giving us an insight into your thoughts. And a pre-occupation with same-sex activities. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

        • So multiple posters make a same-sex comment, and I point out how many posters are making same-sex comments and that somehow means I have a fixation.

          “And a pre-occupation with same-sex activities“

          No, I have a preoccupation with being entertained by so many of you conservative folks thinking and posting about same sex activities.

          Not that there’s anything wrong with that, of course.

      • “the United States Constitution which, as Thomas Jefferson noted, places a wall of separation between church and state.”

        Please quote the Article and Section — I can’t seem to find it in my pocket copy.

        • 1st Amendment
          “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.“

          Details about President Jefferson’s statements regard the wall of separation between Church and State:

          “Jefferson wrote a draft of his reply and gave it to members of his Cabinet, including his attorney general, Levi Lincoln, for comment and review. Following Lincoln’s advice, Jefferson made amendments to the draft. The final letter, sent to the Baptists on Jan. 1, 1802, quoted the language of the First Amendment and included the famous metaphor:

          Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

          https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/godinamerica/people/wall-of-separation.html#:~:text=In%201988%2C%20an%20FBI%20analysis,of%20political%20and%20ecclesiastical%20institutions.

        • So the phrase “wall of separation” doesn’t exist in the Constitution.

          Say, isn’t Thomas Jefferson that white supremacist who raped his slaves and forced at least one to bear his offspring? That guy?

        • “So the phrase “wall of separation” doesn’t exist in the Constitution.”

          Nope. The phrase is a summarization by United States President Thomas Jefferson, one of the Founding Fathers and the author of the Declaration of Independence.
          I’m glad I could help familiarize you with the contents of the United States Constitution.

          “Say, isn’t Thomas Jefferson that white supremacist who raped his slaves”

          Yep, that’s him!

        • You mean The Declaration of Independence which references God three times? That one? The federal government establishing a religion and reverently acknowledging a religion are two entirely different things that bigoted atheists have a difficult time tolerating. It was perfectly acceptable in the early days of the Union for a state to establish an official religion, as long as it wasn’t the federal government. Do you think the religion they established was Hinduism or Islam?

        • “You mean The Declaration of Independence which references God three times?“

          Yep, but only in the most general sense. There is no mention of Jehovah or Jesus in the Declaration of Independence or the constitution of the United States.

          “It was perfectly acceptable in the early days of the Union for a state to establish an official religion“

          Now that is quite the assertion, I’m going to have to ask for some sort of source or reference to support your claim.

          “Do you think the religion they established was Hinduism or Islam?“

          I’m not sure who you’re talking about here, when did any government in the United States lawfully establish a religion?

        • “Yep, but only in the most general sense. There is no mention of Jehovah or Jesus in the Declaration of Independence or the constitution of the United States.”

          Of course. That was the point. You were free to worship, or not, however you saw fit. My point, which went over your head, was that it was also perfectly acceptable to reverently acknowledge the existence of religion.

          “…when did any government in the United States lawfully establish a religion?”

          Early states adopted their own official religions. The federal government didn’t, but the states did. You were welcome to vote for it or against it. Individual states were supposed to be like small countries that operated within the confines of the Constitution. It was okay for states to be different from one another. The federal government wasn’t meant to be the massive, domineering monstrosity it is today. Democrats would like to do away with the states, and have a true democracy. That way, the bureaucracy (deep state) could control the country, which is what they’re already trying to do.

          The Federal government was not to be antagonistic to religion, but was rather to remain impartial in that matter and to attend to its civil business.

          This used to be widely understood. You should brush up on your history.
          https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/church-and-state-united-states-legal-history

        • “So the phrase “wall of separation” doesn’t exist in the Constitution.”

          “Nope. I’m glad I could help familiarize you with the contents of the United States Constitution.”

          Thank you for agreeing with me that the phrase does not appear. I am already familiar, which is why I asked you to show me. You can’t, because they don’t.

        • Well, if one lives under the United States Constitution, then they accept the supremacy, as it were, of the United States Supreme Court which actually has ruled that states may not establish an official religion:

          “In 1947, the Supreme Court attempted to define the “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment. Justice Hugo Black, writing for the court, held:

          “Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. . . . In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against the establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a “wall of separation between Church and State.” [Everson v. Board of Education (1947).]”

          https://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-13-4-a-separating-church-and-state#:~:text=In%201947%2C%20the%20Supreme%20Court,can%20set%20up%20a%20church.

          In fact, the declaration of independence is an aspirational document that holds no sway whatsoever upon the citizens of the United States of America, who live under the social contract we call the constitution.

        • Miner, you brought up the Declaration of Independence. Now you’re saying that is doesn’t matter? It’s our founding document. I never said it “holds sway…upon…citizens of the United States of America…” That’s one of your famous straw man arguments. You specifically used Thomas Jefferson as an example of how we should purge religion from public life. Yet, he acknowledged God’s existence in our founding document. My claim was that it used to be acceptable to reverently acknowledge religion instead of pretending that it didn’t exist in public life.

          From your own link:
          Thus, the First Amendment’s prohibition against laws “respecting an establishment of religion” did not affect what states could do.

          Miner, that case you cite is from 1947. Look at my original comment that you replied to. I said in the early days of the Union… Do you know what the early days were? Hint: it was way before 1947. You don’t understand the history of your own country.

    • What does that have to do with anything?

      Just because maybe people shouldn’t do something doesn’t mean it needs to be illegal

      What’s a little drugs and buttsex between friends?

  2. They are gonna have to deal with this eventually, and right after ruling that due process must be followed before gun confiscation (Rhamni(?)) is as good as any.

    Folks, if you have any spare cash laying around, consider picking a Glock, since if the expected outcome of the case I mentioned just well mean tens of newly-eligible gun owners may be looking to buy, with gun stores stripped clean. Serious profits can be had if that happens, and if the ATF outlaws all private gun sales (also nakedly unconstitutional)…

    • TTAG just posted a feature “Glock: The Beginning.” Are you in cahoots with the site to shill for the tactical tupperware? You should encourage Americans to buy an American-made pistol. Besides, the ATF will come for you if you re-sell guns at a profit. Don’t wanna piss of those Feds!

      • “Are you in cahoots with the site to shill for the tactical tupperware?”

        Go fuck yourself with jagged glass, jerkoff… 🙂

      • “You should encourage Americans to buy an American-made pistol“

        But that would require actual patriotism, as opposed to jingoistic self-serving bullshit.

        I can understand your confusion, Donald Trump claims to put ‘America First!’ but buys his campaign merchandise from communist China.

        • Why would it be “patriotic” to buy an American-made item? Americans are free to choose the product that best suits their needs, or is priced affordably, or because they like how it looks. Americans believe in the free market. Buying a product just because it’s made in America would be “jingoistic, self-serving bullshit.”

        • “Donald Trump claims to put ‘America First!’ but buys his campaign merchandise from communist China.”

          Lie, his hats are made in America. There are made in China knock-offs available on-line…

        • “Donald Trump Sells Chinese Goods Despite Accusing China of Stealing US Jobs
          Trump says he’s “obligated” to buy Chinese goods while China has U.S. jobs.
          By SUSANNA KIM
          June 17, 2015, 2:45 PM ET

          — — In his campaign kickoff on Tuesday, Donald Trump blasted cheap Chinese goods — but he has no problem putting his name on them and selling them.

          The day after his tirade, the Trump Store inside the Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue in New York boasted an array of imported goods, including teddy bears and T-shirts from China alongside products from Haiti,
          Trump said in his speech that he buys Chinese goods because the prices are artificially cheap.

          “A friend of mine is a great manufacturer. And, you know, China comes over and they dump all their stuff, and I buy it,” Trump said. “I buy it, because, frankly, I have an obligation to buy it, because they devalue their currency so brilliantly. They just did it recently, and nobody thought they could do it again.”

          “Trump event touted ‘made in America’ goods. A lot of his merchandise couldn’t be featured.
          The president and his daughter largely manufacture Trump-branded products in countries like China, Indonesia, Turkey and Canada.

          Donald Trump with his latest project, a tabletop collection called Trump Home by Rogask, that includes six patterns of a ornately cut modern crystal-and-gold combination, in a board room at the Trump Tower in New York.
          July 23, 2018, 4:58 PM EDT / Updated July 23, 2018, 4:58 PM EDT
          By Jane C. Timm

          “Unfortunately, my ties are made in China,” Trump admitted in June 2016.

          A “Made in Vietnam” label is pictured on an article of clothing in a display case in the lobby of Republican president-elect Donald Trump’s Trump Tower in New York
          A “Made in Vietnam” label is attached to a Trump-branded article of clothing in 2016.Carlo Allegri / Reuters
          Trump suits sold on Amazon.com are listed as imported. Buzzfeed ordered two; they were made in Indonesia.

          Trump rectangular shaped eyeglasses are made in China, according to retailer eyeglasses.com.

          However, Trump’s cologne line, ‘Success,’ is made in the U.S.A., according to the labeling.

          TrumpStore.com
          Late night television host Jimmy Kimmel went on a shopping spree on the official TrumpStore.com, and found a slew of products made in other countries.

          A white golf hat was made in China, while a Trump mug was made in Thailand. A shoe bag and duffel bag were made in China. A toddler bib he ordered was made in Peru. A Trump collector medallion was made in China. Kimmel also said that two products he ordered — a pet bandanna and a gold block — did not have a country of origin listed on the product or its materials, something that is illegal.
          The lone domestic find? A golf club cover that was made in China, but decorated in the United States.“

  3. Even if the SCOTUS doesn’t re-consider now via certiorari before judgment, after a judgement ruling by the ‘en banc’ the plaintiffs can then file an appeal to SCOTUS and SCOTUS is more accepting of that because they prefer a case-record be fully developed in a lower court rather than certiorari before judgment of the lower court.

    • What’cha wanna bet that Maryland can make unconstitutional laws faster than the Supreme Court can throw them out?

      • “Knock knock”
        “Who’s there?”
        “Congressman Jones, I’m here to confiscate your assault rif…….”
        “blam blam blam blam”

        … wanna bet they can’t beat a speeding bullet?

        • I didn’t say they could outrun bullets. Just that they can make laws faster than they can be struck down. Lawfare. The process is the punishment.

        • “blam blam blam blam”

          Ha ha, good one! Joking about assassinating a member of the United States Congress.

          And yet, you folks are puzzled as to why sane American citizens consider you people violent and mentally ill.

        • “sane American citizens consider you people violent and mentally ill.”

          And here you are.

        • Great video, I hadn’t seen that version of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar.

          Do you think that just because a troop of actors staged a 400 yr old play with the actors wearing modern clothing it somehow is advocating for the assassination of Donald Trump, whose name does not appear anywhere within the performance?

        • “Do you think that just because a troop of actors staged a 400 yr old play with the actors wearing modern clothing it somehow is advocating for the assassination of Donald Trump, whose name does not appear anywhere within the performance?”

          according to your delusional comment of …” Ha ha, good one! Joking about assassinating a member of the United States Congress.

          And yet, you folks are puzzled as to why sane American citizens consider you people violent and mentally ill.”

          in reply to: “Congressman Jones, I’m here to confiscate your assault rif…….”
          “blam blam blam blam”

          yes, according your delusional comment a troop of actors staged a 400 yr old play with the actors wearing modern clothing to advocate for the assassination of Donald Trump.

          shut up hypocrite

        • “I’m here for the same reason that people go to the zoo.”

          So you are here to smear your own poop around for our amusement?

          Yes, you being very successful in amusing us.

        • So sorry you can’t understand the difference between a 400 year old play and “Congressman Jones“.

        • Verbatim commentary from the video:

          “It’s an actor dressed to look just like President Donald Trump, as he’s assassinated on stage.”

          How do you never get tired of being such a disingenuous person?

        • Miner, miner, miner… the contortions you must put yourself through !!!
          Newsflash, congressman Jones isn’t about to come and try to confiscate anything and you know it. Boy, the fucking pretzel you must be wound into trying to figure out how to justify President Braindead being both an innocent forgetful nice old doddering fool to get out of felony charges, but standing up at the teleprompter reading the slow scroll ” I’m sharp as a tack… just ask me about those, um, who again?
          You know, the people that attacked Israel that want us to broker a… you now , that thing… oh yeah, I need to talk to my broker and,
          oops, I just shit my pants…Jill Biden out. ”
          The orangatans must enjoy throwing shit at you when you visit !!

        • I suppose my comment isn’t going to be released from moderation.

          That saves the trouble of removing it after it posts, right, Eds?

  4. The people who say there is a separation between church and state. There are also the same ones that say, you should get a permission slip from the government to have a gun.

    They are also the same ones who say you’re 1st Amendment civil rights, don’t exist outside of a church.

    In 2020 they told christians to not go to Easter church services. But they did say it was safe, to attend gay pride parades. And it was safe to attend Black Lives Matter protests.

    As President Eisenhower said, “the enemies of the United States are atheistic in nature.”

    • They are also the same ones who say parents have no right to their own children. That’s why there’s a republican in the Virginia Governor’s mansion right now. Sane American citizens understand how crazy and dangerous that left wing ideology is.

      • If the atheists would practice what they preach and stay out of our bedrooms??? The world would be a better place.

        But they don’t have self-control.

      • The christians were so correct when they warned everyone about the sexual revolution.

        Herpes. HIV/AIDS. Single mothers and growth of the welfare state. And the growth of the American prison population with mostly men raised by single mothers.

    • So I watched as much as I could of that video, and I didn’t hear any specific information that you claimed:

      “Colin Wright on how a convention of atheists F#cked up the rest of the entire world“

      Specifically, what convention of atheists fucked up the world?
      Just the most basic info: Name, location and date.

        • They must have found out that he hangs around with people that “sane American citizens consider violent and mentally ill.”

  6. What the hell is a “new” atheist???
    Here meet the “new atheist” , same as the old atheist???
    So you are telling me that they disagree with each other? Really, they do???

    I know of 1 or 5 who actually supports the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as written.

    “How the new atheists f#cked everything up. And we are still paying for  it.” video 15 min long.

    https://youtu.be/3YpFTqB7qN4?si=_COqulwHH0vt95sU

  7. Jesus, talking about going WAAAY off topic in the comments. Please, someone shut them down!
    The issue here is the 4th Circuit’s antipathy to “assault weapons” (and the Second Amendment in general), and the behind the scenes maneuvering apparently to prevent the 3 judge panel from publishing an opinion finding Maryland’s ban to be unconstitutional. There is no actual evidence that this is the case, but the fact is that there were two pro-gun judges and one rabidly anti-gun judicial activist on the panel, the opinion had been delayed to a very long time, and the Circuit suddenly took the case without an opinion issuing from the panel, all of which is highly suspicious, supporting an inference that this bizarre procedural happening is purely political.

    That said, it would be highly unusual for the Supreme Court to take the case at this juncture. Typically it reviews the opinion of the Court of Appeals, which of course we don’t have. Other than that, the record is fully developed; the matter was remanded and briefed under the Bruen standard, and the record will not change. So there is no impediment to a grant of review other than standard court procedures. I have no idea if a petition like this has ever been presented or ruled on before, but it must be rare enough to suggest that the Supreme Court taking the case is unlikely.

    • TTAG Is about guns.The politics of guns. The use of guns either in criminal activity or self-defense.
      And who supports 2A civil rights and who does not.

      Many people seem to believe that they are beyond question. Because of who they are, where they were born, what their skin color is, what sexual activities they practice, or even what group they are a member of.

      It sounds like the Firearms Blog might be much better for you. They’re motto is “guns, not politics”. Here you go:

      https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/

    • “Jesus,

      Where? *looks around guiltily*

      talking about going WAAAY off topic in the comments. Please, someone shut them down!”

      Don’t you think the site owners are thrilled about the amount of engagement on their forum? However, it does give the censorbots a workout, not to mention the human-like monitors.

      • Perhaps we should have a discussion on why atheists hate the 2nd Amendment?
        Since we have discussed christians and gun ownership in the past.

  8. Friendly reminder that 18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law
    still has the death penalty for any traitor that removes a constitutional right to the point that anyone dies as a result. A single person dying while being denied the right to buy a gun for self defense is enough to hand out the death penalty to any politician and judge responsible. That’s literally the law!

    • Both legislators and judges (and DAs/AGs) are immune for actions taken in their legislative/judicial capacities. State (as opposed to local) actors are immune from livability under the 11th Amendment.

  10. Perhaps if the residents of Maryland began voting again, like 80% of them, and living up to their civic responsibility?
    They could get their civil rights back.

Comments are closed.