Jump to content

Williams v. Maryland


05FLHT

Recommended Posts

In the present case, Section 4-203(a)(1)(i) of which Williams was convicted, prohibits “wear[ing], carry[ing], or transport[ing] a handgun, whether concealed or open, on or about the person,” in public, without a permit. Here, sufficient evidence was adduced to demonstrate that Williams was wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun in public, and Williams had conceded that he had not obtained, or even applied for, a permit. Williams, however, attempts to bring his conviction of wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun in public, without a permit, within the ambit of Heller and McDonald by claiming that those opinions would prohibit his conviction. This is not the case, because Heller and McDonald emphasize that the Second Amendment is applicable to statutory prohibitions against home possession, the dicta in McDonald that “the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self- defense within the home,” notwithstanding. __ U.S. at __ , 130 S. Ct. at 3044, 177 L. Ed. 2d at 922. Although Williams attempts to find succor in this dicta, it is clear that prohibition of firearms in the home was the gravamen of the certiorari questions in both Heller and McDonald and their answers. If the Supreme Court, in this dicta, meant its holding to extend beyond home possession, it will need to say so more plainly.

 

Wow, them there are some fighting words. I guess MD is throwing down the gauntlet, and I really hope SCOTUS picks it up and executes a MAJOR ******* SLAP!

Williams v. Maryland.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the present case, Section 4-203(a)(1)(i) of which Williams was convicted, prohibits “wear[ing], carry[ing], or transport[ing] a handgun, whether concealed or open, on or about the person,” in public, without a permit. Here, sufficient evidence was adduced to demonstrate that Williams was wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun in public, and Williams had conceded that he had not obtained, or even applied for, a permit. Williams, however, attempts to bring his conviction of wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun in public, without a permit, within the ambit of Heller and McDonald by claiming that those opinions would prohibit his conviction. This is not the case, because Heller and McDonald emphasize that the Second Amendment is applicable to statutory prohibitions against home possession, the dicta in McDonald that “the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self- defense within the home,” notwithstanding. __ U.S. at __ , 130 S. Ct. at 3044, 177 L. Ed. 2d at 922. Although Williams attempts to find succor in this dicta, it is clear that prohibition of firearms in the home was the gravamen of the certiorari questions in both Heller and McDonald and their answers. If the Supreme Court, in this dicta, meant its holding to extend beyond home possession, it will need to say so more plainly.

 

Wow, them there are some fighting words. I guess MD is throwing down the gauntlet, and I really hope SCOTUS picks it up and executes a MAJOR ******* SLAP!

When the Court said in decision that "The Second is no different[than the First]", it already did plainly say that these rights extended outside the home. No sane person will argue that the First Amendment is limited to only within the home. Neither will they argue that a permit is required, that permission must be asked for and paid for and granted, in order to exercise it.

 

It is time to call this track exactly what it is - idiocy based denial employed trying to deny Citizens their Second Amendment recognized rights. Simple as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A big factor in this case, iirc, was that the convict did not even attempt to apply for a license to carry. MD has provisions for carry, but this individual decided to make up his own rules.... It was a weak case to start with.

 

But yea this is a blow for us. It's unfortunate this case was even pressed forward in the first place though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But yea this is a blow for us. It's unfortunate this case was even pressed forward in the first place though.

 

So is this guy not going to appeal? This is a test of McD we've been waiting for, right?

 

No, this is another criminal in possession last ditch effort by his lawyer. Gura has a good plaintiff challenging that law in process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a test of McD we've been waiting for, right?

 

I'll wait for somebody more knowledgable to give a stronger answer. (Edit: Sounds like FF is spot-on)

 

But it's my guess/assumption/feeling that, were this case to win, it would mean license to carry is unnecessary and we therefore have federal Constitutional carry. That's a pretty tall order, and doomed to fail as I understand it. Maryland has (an albeit pain-in-the-***) license to carry, which this guy failed to even apply for. He had an avenue to legally carry a firearm outside of the home but didn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a test of McD we've been waiting for, right?

 

Williams is not an ideal candidate to champion the Second Amendment, but then again neither was Miranda. Williams is going to appeal, what does he have to lose? I made a comment in regards to this on Calguns, in essence saying that time to formulate the 'right' case, with the 'right' plantiff/defendant, and in the 'right' venue is a luxury not easily afforded. Criminal defense attorneys were formulating Second Amendment challenges for their clients before the ink McDonald was written in dried.

 

 

But it's my guess/assumption/feeling that, were this case to win, it would mean license to carry is unnecessary and we therefore have federal Constitutional carry. That's a pretty tall order, and doomed to fail as I understand it. Maryland has (an albeit pain-in-the-***) license to carry, which this guy failed to even apply for. He had an avenue to legally carry a firearm outside of the home but didn't.

 

Yes, Maryland issues carry permits. No, there is no way in heck you, being a 'common' law abiding citizen, would get one. Maryland's permitting process is, to say the least,arbitrary and capricious at best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a test of McD we've been waiting for, right?

 

I'll wait for somebody more knowledgable to give a stronger answer. (Edit: Sounds like FF is spot-on)

 

But it's my guess/assumption/feeling that, were this case to win, it would mean license to carry is unnecessary and we therefore have federal Constitutional carry. That's a pretty tall order, and doomed to fail as I understand it. Maryland has (an albeit pain-in-the-***) license to carry, which this guy failed to even apply for. He had an avenue to legally carry a firearm outside of the home but didn't.

 

So in MD your right to protect yourself ends when you step out of your house! This is not the perfect case to bring, but if there is a circuit split on the issue there is also another plaintiff and hopefully that case is on behalf of a moral upstanding citizen like Otis McDonald.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Section 4-203(a)(1)(i) of which Williams was convicted, prohibits "wear[ing], carry[ing], or transport[ing] a handgun, whether concealed or open, on or about the person," in public, without a permit.

If I can't transport my handgun about my person how do I get it from my house to the range and back?

 

You don't.

 

Same type of law exists in IN. They are touted for their carry law, which is a good one. What many people don't understand is, if you don't have an IN LTCH or a license from another state, you can only carry your handgun from the FFL to your home and to your gunsmith legally. Period. Not "unloaded and encased" nor "not easily accessible" nor "disassembled to a non-operating state". With the "unrestricted" license, you can carry open or concealed statewide. They have another class of license available for target shooting only. Not many people opt for that one.

 

AB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...