Fourth Circuit to Hear Maryland Second Amendment Case En Banc

AmmoLand ^ | January 12, 2024 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

On January 11, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit agreed to re-hear the case of Maryland Shall Issue v Wes Moore.

A three-judge panel found the Maryland law infringed on Second Amendment rights to acquire handguns and was unconstitutional under the Supreme Court Bruen decision of 2022. The three-judge panel filed the split decision on November 21, 2023.

This is a long-running court case challenging numerous infringements required by the Maryland law. The case started in 2016.

On December 5, 2023, the defendants (essentially the government of Maryland) filed for an en banc hearing of the case before the entire Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The government of Maryland, in its petition for an en banc review, showcases an alarming misunderstanding of the Constitution and the Bruen Supreme Court decision. The state claims the Bruen decision actively promoted the concept all “Shall Issue” laws are acceptable under the Second Amendment. This comes from a misreading of Judge Kavanaugh’s concurrence. As such, it is only Judge Kavanaugh’s opinion. From the Bruen decision, Justice Kavanaugh concurring:

I join the Court’s opinion, and I write separately to underscore two important points about the limits of the Court’s decision.

First, the Court’s decision does not prohibit States from imposing licensing requirements for carrying a handgun for self-defense. In particular, the Court’s decision does not affect the existing licensing regimes—known as “shall-issue” regimes—that are employed in 43 States.

Supreme Court decisions only apply to the issues raised in the case. The question of whether Shall Issue laws are constitutional was not raised, which is why the Bruen decision does not prohibit them at this time.

More from the Kavanaugh concurrence:

Going forward, therefore, the 43 States that employ objective shall-issue licensing regimes for carrying handguns for

[marktwain]

A few states are doing everything they can to resist the restoration of Second Amendment protections. Those oppossing an armed population claim the Supreme Court has explicitly approved of "Shall Issue" laws and "Regulation of Commerce in Firearms". It has not. It simply said it was not addressing those issues.

[Qwapisking]

Exactly HOW many ways can “Shall Not Be Infringed” be parsed?

[AndyJackson]

Kavanaugh is not parsing “shall not be infringed.” He is parsing the opinion of the majority. He is a Bush league Roberts in this regard, throwing a turd in the punch bowl, being perhaps clever but not wise, sort of like Robert’s “it’s a tax” which is the kind of dodge around the rights of American citizens that you would expect a really clever but really silly Harvard summa cum laude certified servant of the global order to come up with.

Pity that conservatives didn’t jump all over frat boy instead of fake-rape victims.

[sauropod]

The People’s Republic is at the head of the pack.

I’m so proud.

[pierrem15]

The original panel struck down Maryland's restrictions. Now the Fourth Circuit is imitating the Ninth by deciding to hold an en banc review in order to overturn the original panel's decision.

Meanwhile the Seventh Circuit invents a new legal category of "military arms" not present in the Constitution, the laws, or prior precedent in order to uphold Illinois' patently unconstitutional and sweeping semi-automatic rifle ban. Note that the specious category of "military arms" imitates the Dems' gun control mantra verbatim.

We have several circuits more or less in open revolt against Bruen but SCOTUS does nothing.