Bianchi v. Frosh

PER CURIAM

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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