The ruling by the Fourth Circuit on the Maryland assault weapon ban was...well, I think the technical, legal term is "bat-guano insane." Cam did an excellent job going into just why I characterize it like that when he covered the decision itself. It makes absolutely no legal sense, particularly as the court claimed they were adhering to Bruen.

It's just nuts.

If that were the totality of what happened, that would be bad enough. However, there appears to be some evidence of something else going on with this ruling. In particular, it looks like some hinky games were being played to get the ruling some of the judges wanted.

In a stunning revelation, dissenting judges in the Bianchi case exposed the underhanded tactics of their majority counterparts within the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. This shocking disclosure shines a light on the manipulations aimed at undermining the Second Amendment, confirming long-held suspicions by many gun rights advocates, including Mark Smith of Four Boxes Diner.

...

Inside the Court’s Manipulation

Mark Smith, a constitutional attorney and gun rights advocate, has long speculated about judicial misconduct within the Fourth Circuit. His suspicions were recently confirmed through a detailed dissent in the Bianchi case, revealing how anti-gun judges played dirty to suppress a pro-Second Amendment ruling.

The dissenting opinion referenced the manipulation tactics by anti-gun judges within the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in footnote number 2 on page 87 of the Bianchi decision. Here is the relevant excerpt from the dissent that highlights the courts’ manipulation:

“This unorthodox procedural posture bears some explanation. After hearing the case in December 2022, the initial panel majority reached a decision and promptly circulated a draft opinion. Yet, for more than a year, no dissent was circulated. The panel thus held the proposed opinion in accordance with our custom that majority and dissenting opinions be published together. One year later, as the proposed opinion sat idle, a different panel heard arguments in United States v. Price, which also involved interpreting and applying Bruen. The Price panel quickly circulated a unanimous opinion that reached a conclusion at odds with the Bianchi’s majority’s year-old proposed opinion. Facing two competing proposed published opinions, the court declined to let the earlier circulated opinion control. Rather, in January 2024, we invoked the once extraordinary mechanism of an initial en banc review. I hope that we will not find ourselves in the posture again soon, suggesting that the majority opinions may be issued without awaiting dissenting opinions to prohibit those dissenting judges or dissenting opinions from exercising a pocket veto to deny or delay fairness and justice.”

This passage reveals that the initial panel had reached a pro-Second Amendment decision by December 2022. However, a dissenting judge delayed circulating their dissenting opinion, effectively stalling the release of the majority decision. This delay allowed another panel to issue an anti-Second Amendment ruling in a separate case (United States v. Price), which conflicted with the Bianchi decision. This conflict prompted the Fourth Circuit to rehear the Bianchi case en banc, ultimately leading to an anti-Second Amendment ruling. This strategic stalling and procedural maneuvering illustrate the manipulation within the court to suppress a favorable Second Amendment ruling. 

To call this troubling is an understatement.

Now, with that said, if the panel had issued its ruling, Maryland would have appealed to an en banc review and we'd probably still be where we are today, but that's not really the issue, is it? The issue is that there are rules that are supposed to be followed and the anti-gun judges in the Fourth Circuit were playing games to try and get the result they wanted.

I'm not well-versed enough on this side of the legal debate to offer particular insight, but as a layman, I have to wonder if this is ground to vacate the ruling. If the procedures weren't adhered to, is the ruling valid? If not, will the Supreme Court make such a determination, vacate the ruling, and force the Fourth Circuit to do it all over again?

If they do, will anything be different a second time around?

Much of the problem with the Fourth Circuit ruling is the willful mangling of Bruen's history, text, and tradition standard to reach an anti-Second Amendment conclusion because that's what they wanted to do anyway. It wasn't a ruling grounded in an understanding of the law, it was a rationalization masquerading as a judicial ruling.

And we all know it.

What happens now? Honestly, at this point, I'd like to believe that the Supreme Court will step in and just slap down the assault weapon ban while also slapping down the Fourth Circuit for playing these games. Realistically, though, I'm not holding out much hope for both to happen, particularly the latter.

But the truth is that shenanigans happened and it happened in order to block a pro-gun ruling. That shouldn't be tolerated by anyone because if one side can do it, then both sides can.