Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Bianchi vs. Frosh

    Uploaded by

    streiff at redstate
    62K views3 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a challenge to Maryland's ban on assault weapons. The plaintiffs argued the ban violated the Second Amendment, but the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal because the plaintiffs' argument was foreclosed by an earlier Fourth Circuit en banc decision that upheld the constitutionality of Maryland's assault weapons ban. As a panel, the Fourth Circuit could not reconsider the earlier en banc ruling.

    Original Description:

    Challenge of Maryland's Assault Weapons Ban

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a challenge to Maryland's ban on assault weapons. The plaintiffs argued the ban violated the Second Amendment, but the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal because the plaintiffs' argument was foreclosed by an earlier Fourth Circuit en banc decision that upheld the constitutionality of Maryland's assault weapons ban. As a panel, the Fourth Circuit could not reconsider the earlier en banc ruling.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    62K views3 pages

    Bianchi vs. Frosh

    Uploaded by

    streiff at redstate
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a challenge to Maryland's ban on assault weapons. The plaintiffs argued the ban violated the Second Amendment, but the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal because the plaintiffs' argument was foreclosed by an earlier Fourth Circuit en banc decision that upheld the constitutionality of Maryland's assault weapons ban. As a panel, the Fourth Circuit could not reconsider the earlier en banc ruling.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 21-1255

    DOMINIC BIANCHI, an individual and resident of Baltimore County; DAVID


    SNOPE, an individual and resident of Baltimore County; MICAH SCHAEFER, an
    individual and resident of Anne Arundel County; FIELD TRADERS LLC, A
    resident of Anne Arundel County; FIREARMS POLICY COALITION, INC.;
    SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION; CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR THE
    RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS,

    Plaintiffs - Appellants,

    v.

    BRIAN E. FROSH, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Maryland; COL.


    WOODROW W. JONES, III, in his official capacity as Secretary of State Police of
    Maryland; R. JAY FISHER, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Baltimore County,
    Maryland; JIM FREDERICKS, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Anne Arundel
    County, Maryland,

    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
    James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:20-cv-03495-JKB)

    Submitted: September 14, 2021 Decided: September 17, 2021

    Before THACKER and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
    Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Raymond M. DiGuiseppe, THE DIGUISEPPE LAW FIRM, P.C., Southport, North
    Carolina; Adam Kraut, FIREARMS POLICY COALTION, Sacramento, California;
    David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, Tiernan B. Kane, COOPER & KIRK, PLLC,
    Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General of Maryland,
    Robert A. Scott, Assistant Attorney General, Ryan R. Dietrich, Assistant Attorney General,
    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for
    Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    2
    PER CURIAM:

    Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s order dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983

    complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In this action,

    Plaintiffs sought to challenge Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act’s ban on assault weapons as

    violative of the Second Amendment. As Plaintiffs concede, however, their argument is

    squarely foreclosed by this court’s decision in Kolbe v. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114 (4th Cir.

    2017) (en banc). “As a panel, we are not authorized to reconsider an en banc holding.”

    Joseph v. Angelone, 184 F.3d 320, 325 (4th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, we affirm the district

    court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

    adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

    decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like