BIANCHI LLC v. FROSH III (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

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.

No. 21-1255

Decided: September 17, 2021

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

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.

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

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network