Via email from Rolf:
Footnote 2 on page 87:
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. A year later—as the proposed opinion sat idle—a different panel heard arguments in United States v. Price (No. 22-4609), which also involved interpreting and applying Bruen. The Price panel quickly circulated a unanimous opinion that reached a conclusion at odds with the Bianchi 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 initial-en-banc review.” Mayor of Balt. v. Azar, 799 F. App’x 193, 195–96 (4th Cir. 2020) (Richardson, J., dissenting). I hope that we will not find ourselves in this posture again soon. Cf. United States v. Gibbs, 905 F.3d 768, 770 (4th Cir. 2018) (Wynn, J., voting separately) (suggesting that majority opinions may be issued without awaiting dissenting opinions to prohibit those dissenting opinions from exercising a “pocket veto” to “deny or delay fairness and justice”).
The one judge on a three-judge panel who is hostile to the 2nd Amendment deliberately did not release her dissent for over a year in order to create a ‘pocket veto’ long enough for an anti-2nd Amendment opinion from a different three-judge panel to create a conflict and prevent the first case from establishing a precedent.
I hope those judges enjoy their trials.
The two pro-2A judges on the first panel clearly value their process, which is nowhere in statute or constitution, more than the rights of of Americans.
The tell is that we were right all along. The fact they resort to such tricky tells us all we need to know about who/whom were dealing with.
And that they know exactly what they’re doing is criminal. All of them know.
In the Bill of rights is wrote this sentence, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
And you just infringed on it.
So, there’s no penalty ascribed, what are you going to do?
That’s the good part, actually. It’s whatever we want.
Lawless=lawlessness, and you should agree one must make examples. We’ll use 1776 is our jurisprudence.
Any particular tree you like, your honor? Or will any lamppost do?
Communism is a crime against humanity.