4TH CIRCUIT FLIP FLOP

[pacrat]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/federal-court-vacates-gun-rights-ruling-on-restricting-buyers-under-21/ar-AAOIKUh?li=BBnb7Kz

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that its previously ruling in July was now moot as the two plaintiffs in the case had recently turned 21, Reuters reported. Circuit Judge Julius Richardson said vacating the ruling he had previously authored would serve the public's interest as it would make way for further litigation in the future.

WHUTTHEHELL.

Asinine to moot settled law for the purpose of relitigating.

He got it right. Then Ch!t on his robe, and the constitution, because Biden asked him to.

Moot means it never happened and 18 to 20 yr olds are back to having their 2A rights stricken in Virginia.

[AdamVIP]

So I guess all they have to do is make each case last more than 2 years and then moot them.

[Fyathyrio]

Link to a better source than MSN

[Mute]

Who's surprised by this? Judges, regardless of their political leanings are all part of the ruling elite and seem to have attitudes that reflect that. Their decisions are what's best for everyone. What's the US Constitution got to do with it? That's just an excuse they use for appearance sake.

[press1280]

This seems a complete weasel out by the court. Now perhaps in the literal letter of the law this was correct, but jeez plaintiffs got screwed because the court system is so ridiculously slow. And, even if plaintiffs mooted out I think the appeals court ruling should have stood at least.

But perhaps plaintiffs didn't do their due diligence and should have added additional (younger) plaintiffs to keep the case going. It's almost impossible to bring a novel case to SCOTUS from start to finish in under 3 years.

[BeAuMaN]

He got it right. Then Ch!t on his robe, and the constitution, because Biden asked him to.

Really? That's the takeaway you get from this?
Let's quote from the mooting opinion here:
So... let's get this straight... The lawyer representing the plaintiffs, one Elliot M. Harding, Esq., waited until the day before their last remaining party turned 21 to file to add more parties, and then filed in the wrong court. Elliot did what lawyers typically do: Wait and file at the last minute. Except Elliot here miscalculated. Probably should have filed earlier than the last day before the case is in danger of becoming moot, because it's not like mootness has been in the news recently for a notable Supreme Court gun case, right? .

This case has been going on for like 3 years; plaintiff's lawyers have have had plenty of time to go find more parties to add to the case so that it won't go moot.

Was there a particular gun rights org running this case or was it just the lone lawyer? I haven't been following this case closely.

[bohoki]

So I guess all they have to do is make each case last more than 2 years and then moot them.

yea imagine if thats what they did to abortion cases

[BeAuMaN]

yea imagine if thats what they did to abortion cases

Except they tried to moot abortion cases, when they tried to moot Roe v. Wade, and so more or less an exception was borne out of that, which is basically capable of repetition yet evading review, since not only do you have the short length of time in pregnancy, but that it can be done repeatedly (you can get pregnant multiple times). If one could turn 21 multiple times, then it would have been covered under that very exception for mootness.

[AdamVIP]

If one could turn 21 multiple times, then it would have been covered under that very exception for mootness.

My wife has turned 26 for the last 13 years.