From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bianchi v. Frosh

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Sep 17, 2021
No. 21-1255 (4th Cir. Sep. 17, 2021)

Opinion

21-1255

09-17-2021

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.

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UNPUBLISHED

Submitted: September 14, 2021

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)

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.

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

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

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


Summaries of

Bianchi v. Frosh

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Sep 17, 2021
No. 21-1255 (4th Cir. Sep. 17, 2021)
Case details for

Bianchi v. Frosh

Case Details

Full title:DOMINIC BIANCHI, an individual and resident of Baltimore County; DAVID…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Sep 17, 2021

Citations

No. 21-1255 (4th Cir. Sep. 17, 2021)

Citing Cases

United States v. Berry

was not a may-issue licensing regime, like the one challenged in Bruen, but a lower court decision that…

Bevis v. City of Naperville

When the Supreme Court issued Bruen, it vacated several federal appellate decisions upholding gun controls…