05FLHT Posted April 22, 2011 at 08:21 PM Share Posted April 22, 2011 at 08:21 PM A shameless quote of krucam's post on Calguns http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=424194 (Btw, at the link above there is some VERY GOOD discussion by some VERY respected people) Williams v. Maryland ~ Petition for Writ of Cert Stephen Halbrook has apparently filed a Writ for Cert to the Supreme Court in the case of Williams v. Maryland. QUESTION PRESENTEDWhether peaceably carrying or transporting aregistered handgun outside the home, without a carrypermit that is unobtainable by ordinary, law-abidingcitizens, is outside of the scope of “the right of thepeople to . . . bear arms” protected by the SecondAmendment to the United States Constitution. http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/lawsuits/Petition_cert_Williams_FINAL.pdf Williams was a case in the criminal courts, not civil. The opinion was notable in their audacity in my opinion, saying "iIf the Supreme Court, in this dicta, meant its holding to extend beyond home possession, it will need to say so more plainly." Careful what you wish for, perhaps. http://mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2011/16a10.pdf The question now is if this one will have the legs, or perhaps they'll deny it, knowing of SAF/CGF/Gura's blitzkrieg in the lower courts. I guess we'll see... There's that sound again...chugga chugga CHOO CHOO! **To any Mod, please move this to 2A. I put it in National Politics by mistake. Thanks!** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
05FLHT Posted April 22, 2011 at 08:59 PM Author Share Posted April 22, 2011 at 08:59 PM More discussion on MDS http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=56480 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mstrat Posted April 22, 2011 at 10:01 PM Share Posted April 22, 2011 at 10:01 PM So if I'm understanding this correctly, this means if the SCOTUS accepts this, we would get further clarification on what the states can and cannot do with respect to "bear arms" ? In other words... this has the possibility of blowing the "in the home" argument out of the water? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
05FLHT Posted April 22, 2011 at 10:08 PM Author Share Posted April 22, 2011 at 10:08 PM So if I'm understanding this correctly, this means if the SCOTUS accepts this, we would get further clarification on what the states can and cannot do with respect to "bear arms" ? In other words... this has the possibility of blowing the "in the home" argument out of the water? If Cert is granted SCOTUS decides if a lawful individual can bear arms 'outside of the home.' Yes, it would blow a lot of things out of the water. It takes 4 Justices to accept the Cert. Heller and McDonald were both 5-4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mstrat Posted April 22, 2011 at 10:10 PM Share Posted April 22, 2011 at 10:10 PM It takes 4 Justices to accept the Cert. Heller and McDonald were both 5-4. I was just looking into that. It sounds like 4 need to accept it first, but it will still require another 5-4 majority on their decision for it to work in our favor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
05FLHT Posted April 23, 2011 at 12:35 AM Author Share Posted April 23, 2011 at 12:35 AM Analysis and commentary on Volokh Conspiracy - http://volokh.com/2011/04/22/cert-petition-in-right-to-carry-case/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey Posted April 23, 2011 at 03:47 AM Share Posted April 23, 2011 at 03:47 AM So if SCOTUS takes this up and rules in our favor the second amendment will have scope outside the home? Wewt! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
05FLHT Posted April 23, 2011 at 10:13 AM Author Share Posted April 23, 2011 at 10:13 AM So if SCOTUS takes this up and rules in our favor the second amendment will have scope outside the home? Wewt! Bingo. Williams was arrested and convicted for doing nothing more than possessing his legally owned handgun 'outside of the home,' without a carry permit issued by Maryland. Although Williams did not apply for a carry permit, the MD AG, Gansler, replied in a brief to the 4th in Woollard that otherwise law abiding citizens, such as Williams, would not have 'good and substantial reason' to be 'granted' a permit anyway. Quite simply, the court is being asked if the Second Amendment protects an otherwise lawful citizen, who peacefully carry a firearm outside of the home without a 'permit' that the State will not issue. It is a simple and direct question that the court has wide latitude to answer. Don't forget, the 4th is also the circuit that stated 'if the SCOTUS meant so, they should have said so more plainly.' Well, let's hope they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howard Roark Posted April 26, 2011 at 04:47 AM Share Posted April 26, 2011 at 04:47 AM Last year I bought a couple of copies of Stephen Halbrook's excellent book on the Second Amendment. Excellent book. And lucky for us, he is the attorney of record on this case's appeal to the US Supreme Court. Even better, he has wins at the Supreme Court on gun issues. Citations will follow, be patient. http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51xxuy%2BpvbL._SL160_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-dp,TopRight,12,-18_SH30_OU01_AA160_.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
05FLHT Posted May 5, 2011 at 11:33 AM Author Share Posted May 5, 2011 at 11:33 AM No. 10-1207 Title: Charles F. Williams, Jr., Petitioner v. Maryland Docketed: April 5, 2011 Lower Ct: Court of Appeals of Maryland Case Nos.: (16, September Term, 2010) Decision Date: January 5, 2011 ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Apr 5 2011 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 5, 2011) Apr 20 2011 Waiver of right of respondent Maryland to respond filed. May 3 2011 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 19, 2011. http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-1207.htm The next step in SCOTUS granting Cert. has been taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CraigC Posted May 6, 2011 at 12:58 AM Share Posted May 6, 2011 at 12:58 AM No. 10-1207 Title: Charles F. Williams, Jr., Petitioner v. Maryland Docketed: April 5, 2011 Lower Ct: Court of Appeals of Maryland Case Nos.: (16, September Term, 2010) Decision Date: January 5, 2011 ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Apr 5 2011 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 5, 2011) Apr 20 2011 Waiver of right of respondent Maryland to respond filed. May 3 2011 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 19, 2011. http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-1207.htm The next step in SCOTUS granting Cert. has been taken. Did I read that correctly? Maryland waived their right to respond? I assume that this is good for us??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
05FLHT Posted May 6, 2011 at 01:11 AM Author Share Posted May 6, 2011 at 01:11 AM Did I read that correctly? Maryland waived their right to respond? I assume that this is good for us??? They're the ones that wanted the SCOTUS to 'say so more plainly,' in regards to bearing arms outside of the home. Looks like they'll get their <open mouth, insert foot> wish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howard Roark Posted May 6, 2011 at 04:17 AM Share Posted May 6, 2011 at 04:17 AM Did I read that correctly? Maryland waived their right to respond? I assume that this is good for us??? They're the ones that wanted the SCOTUS to 'say so more plainly,' in regards to bearing arms outside of the home. Looks like they'll get their <open mouth, insert foot> wish. Stupid is as stupid does, to quote Forrest Gump and Herman Melville. If Washington DC had just "shut up" we would not have our glorious victory at Heller. And now Maryland says "guns ONLY in the home!" unless the SCOTUS tells them otherwise. And Maryland is facing the same 5 members of the Supreme Court that decided both Heller and McDonald. How many ways are there to spell s.t.u.p.i.d. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
w00dc4ip Posted May 20, 2011 at 06:55 PM Share Posted May 20, 2011 at 06:55 PM No. 10-1207 Title: Charles F. Williams, Jr., Petitionerv.MarylandDocketed: April 5, 2011Lower Ct: Court of Appeals of Maryland Case Nos.: (16, September Term, 2010) Decision Date: January 5, 2011 ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Apr 5 2011 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 5, 2011)Apr 20 2011 Waiver of right of respondent Maryland to respond filed.May 3 2011 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 19, 2011.May 16 2011 Response Requested . (Due June 15, 2011)May 18 2011 Order extending time to file response to petition to and including July 15, 2011. Looks like Maryland won't get to just ignore this and let it go away... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CraigC Posted May 20, 2011 at 08:19 PM Share Posted May 20, 2011 at 08:19 PM No. 10-1207 Title: Charles F. Williams, Jr., Petitionerv.MarylandDocketed: April 5, 2011Lower Ct: Court of Appeals of Maryland Case Nos.: (16, September Term, 2010) Decision Date: January 5, 2011 ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Apr 5 2011 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 5, 2011)Apr 20 2011 Waiver of right of respondent Maryland to respond filed.May 3 2011 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 19, 2011.May 16 2011 Response Requested . (Due June 15, 2011)May 18 2011 Order extending time to file response to petition to and including July 15, 2011. Looks like Maryland won't get to just ignore this and let it go away... I'm reading it differently. I took "response requested" to mean that the court really wants to hear maryland's side. I see it as a very good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
05FLHT Posted May 22, 2011 at 03:27 PM Author Share Posted May 22, 2011 at 03:27 PM I'm reading it differently. I took "response requested" to mean that the court really wants to hear maryland's side. I see it as a very good thing. As I understand it, the court only requests a response if there is interest in granting Cert. This is a good sign... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.